Accuracy of Iranian missiles

[Stryker1982]

In Israel:

12 powerplants with 48 production units produce 100% of electricity.
5 desalination plants produce 50% of drinking water
same situation with gas distribution

Some 150 missiles launched simultaneously can send Israel back to the stone age in just 5 minutes

With that revolutionary precision, Iran can target aircraft shelters (F-35) in Israeli air force bases

Some 300 missiles launched simultaneously in a sudden unexpected strike can wipe out entire Israeli air force in just 5 minutes

But Iran can do this only after Iran becomes a nuclear power with nuclear deterrence....

We wont be able to fire a single missile if Iran has nuclear warheads. Iran is the only country in the world that has the luxury of firing MRBMs without the world thinking it's nuclear tipped.

 

[graphican]

Such power-show enures there will be peace in the region.

How is Iran able to achieve this accuracy? I am sure American GPS is not helping them achieve that.

 

[Arian]

Such power-show enures there will be peace in the region.

How is Iran able to achieve this accuracy? I am sure American GPS is not helping them achieve that.

Ring laser gyroscopes perhaps. I don't think Iran has access to GLONAS or BeiDou either.

 

[Tumba]

Ballistic Missiles without Nukes are more or less waste of resources...
cruise missiles can be used for tactical targets ...

A ballistic missile with long range needs a city buster thermo nuke...

 

[Arian]

Ballistic Missiles without Nukes are more or less waste of resources...
cruise missiles can be used for tactical targets ...

A ballistic missile with long range needs a city buster thermo nuke...

Did you see the accuracy? The CEP seems to be less than 10m, maybe even 5m. How is it a waste of resources if it can target any facility or military base with high accuracy?

 

[Tumba]

Did you see the accuracy? The CEP seems to be less than 10m, maybe even 5m. How is it a waste of resources if it can target any facility or military base with high accuracy?

how much conventional load it can carry max 1000 kg?

hardened facilities underground needs much more than that ...

accuracy matters but cruise missiles are more controllable and can carry out same job pretty sure one can buy 3-4 cruise missiles on same money as one big arse ballistic missile.

 

[The Accountant]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350035476724543488

Which type of missiles are these

 

[Arian]

how much conventional load it can carry max 1000 kg?

hardened facilities underground needs much more than that ...

accuracy matters but cruise missiles are more controllable and can carry out same job pretty sure one can buy 3-4 cruise missiles on same money as one big arse ballistic missile.

Khorramshahr carries a 1,800 kilogram warhead just to tell you that there's no reason to say that the maximum is 1,000 kilograms.
But your point is wrong anyway. Tomahawk, for example, a cruise missile, carries a 1,000 lbs (450 kg) warhead and yet it has enough destructive power to be used against military bases and targets of significant value. Most Iranian missiles carry 650 kilogram warheads. For hardened facilities, even cruise missiles may not be useful. It depends on the target completely.
Also, you can fire several of these missiles on the same target for more destructive power.

Your other point is wrong too because 1. You don't know how much this missile costs. 2. Ballistic missiles are faster than cruise missiles and they're harder to intercept. So if they can achieve the same accuracy, they're more lethal.

 

[Surenas]

Ballistic Missiles without Nukes are more or less waste of resources...

This is outdated thinking.

When Iran has the capability to accurately strike critical civil and military infrastructure, the threat has evolved into a strategic one. This has also been noted by leading Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin.

 

[Tumba]

Khorramshahr carries a 1,800 kilogram warhead just to tell you that there's no reason to say that the maximum is 1,000 kilograms.
But your point is wrong anyway. Tomahawk, for example, a cruise missile, carries a 1,000 lbs (450 kg) warhead and yet it has enough destructive power to be used against military bases and targets of significant value. Most Iranian missiles carry 650 kilogram warheads. For hardened facilities, even cruise missiles may not be useful. It depends on the target completely.

Your other point is wrong too because 1. You don't know how much this missile costs. 2. Ballistic missiles are faster than cruise missiles and they're harder to intercept. So if they can achieve the same accuracy, they're more lethal.

ballistic missile with minimal or no maneuvering is much easier to target than a cruise missile which can fly below radar scans and can be commanded to loiter before targeting ..
many countries currently has anti ballistic missile capabilities but taking out cruise missile is much more difficult as if your radar cant scan you cant lock and destroy...

and I am pretty sure a ballistic missile will definitely be more expensive than a cruise missile... simple reason
the ballistic missiles need much more fuel to first leave atmosphere then needs heat shielding when comes back from near space into atmosphere ...

 

[Arian]

ballistic missile with minimal or no maneuvering is much easier to target than a cruise missile which can fly below radar scans and can be commanded to loiter before targeting ..
many countries currently has anti ballistic missile capabilities but taking out cruise missile is much more difficult as if your radar cant scan you cant lock and destroy...

and I am pretty sure a ballistic missile will definitely be more expensive than a cruise missile... simple reason
the ballistic missiles need much more fuel to first leave atmosphere then needs heat shielding when comes back from near space into atmosphere ...

It depends on many factors. For example, in a place with flat topography, cruise missiles can be detected easier than in a mountainous region. Also, a subsonic cruise missile will be easily shut down when it is detected but a hypersonic ballistic missile is extremely hard to shut down even if detected.

Fair enough but you talked about buying. A tomahawk missile costs $1.5M to buy from the US. There's a good chance that this missile costs less than that.

 

[Surenas]

@Tumba

Like I have said, the thinking that ballistic missiles are useless without a nuclear warhead is heavily outdated.

Watch how leading Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin answers the following question from minute 46:00 onwards:

 

[Tumba]

It depends on many factors. For example, in a place with flat topography, cruise missiles can be detected easier than in a mountainous region. Also, a subsonic cruise missile will be easily shut down when it is detected but a hypersonic ballistic missile is extremely hard to shut down even if detected.

Fair enough but you talked about buying. A tomahawk missile costs $1.5M to buy from the US. There's a good chance that this missile costs less than that.

main issue with ballistic missile is it can be detected in much advance many times even during launch phase and definitely when its in near space...
as its a ballistic projectile the paths can be calculated with zero error precision..

doesnt matter if its hypersonic all a anti missile battery needs to do is send few kinetic SAMs to intercept ...

in case of cruise missile its almost too difficult to target it many cruise missiles can go as low as 10-200 meters in all lo-lo-lo profile ... and even in mountainous region terrain hugging mode works simple reason is turbofan/turbojet engine where velocity can be controlled with application of fuel and fins..
in case of ballistic missiles specially in last stage all you are basically looking is a dumb very fast heated warhead..

and if Tomahawk is just 1.5 million that's actually much more cheaper than a SRBM/MRBM even under 1000 kms range like.. more than 5 times ...one can buy 7-8 cruise missiles against one SRBM/MRBM

think about 7 * 250 kg warheads vs 1800 dumb warhead which can be targeted which one should be chosen for targets?

 

[PDF]

@Tumba

Like I have said, the thinking that ballistic missiles are useless without a nuclear warhead is heavily outdated.

Watch how leading Israeli missile expert answers the following question from minute 46:00 onwards:

And with being a nuke, a missile does not need accuracy. It doesn't matter if the missile hits in the centre of the city or a 100 meter off that point.

 

[Tumba]

@Tumba

Like I have said, the thinking that ballistic missiles are useless without a nuclear warhead is heavily outdated.

Watch how leading Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin answers the following question from minute 46:00 onwards:

yes I get his point that nukes cant be used.. but here we are comparing cruise missiles against BMs...
and again the point remains which one is more survivable and provides you better ability and is cheaper...