Accuracy of Iranian missiles

[Surenas]

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.

But nukes have evolved into political weapons only. Their military applicability have significantly diminished up to the point that they have become merely weapons of last resort. They are the ultimate trump card on the escalation ladder, but within the threshold of conventional warfare their utility is non-existent. Now this may change in the future, but for now nuclear weapons are pretty much a taboo.

 

[PDF]

But nukes have evolved into political weapons only. Their military applicability have significantly diminished up to the point that they have become weapons of last resort. They are the ultimate trump card on the escalation ladder, but within the threshold of conventional warfare their utility is non-existent. Now this may change in the future, but for now nuclear weapons are pretty much a taboo.

In some cases like Indo-Pak conflict, there is divergence from what you stated. If a barrage of missiles are fired from either side, nobody will wait till they absorb the strikes, we will consider them as nukes and prepare for counter-strikes (or second strike).
Then there is tactical missiles armed with un-conventional warhead. So to sum it up, it all depends upon the geographical realities of the areas of interest.
In Iran's case, missiles are very valuable in operational strategy, and should not be taboo to be used, mainly because Iran does not have nuclear capability... yet. If and when it does, missile usage will be forbidden generally.

 

[Surenas]

In some cases like Indo-Pak conflict, there is divergence from what you stated. If a barrage of missiles are fired from either side, nobody will wait till they absorb the strikes, we will consider them as nukes and prepare for counter-strikes (or second strike).

Then there is tactical missiles armed with un-conventional warhead. So to sum it up, it all depends upon the geographical realities of the areas of interest.

In Iran's case, missiles are very valuable in operational strategy, and should not be taboo to be used, mainly because Iran does not have nuclear capability... yet. If and when it does, missile usage will be forbidden generally.

You raise some good points.

I noted this dynamic in 2019 during the border skirmishes between Pakistan and India. If my memory serves me well, it was Pakistan that ambiguously hinted at the use of nuclear weapons if the conflict was to become more intensive. The primary motivation for Pakistan to quickly raise the stakes in any conflict with India I think, to the point of threatening to use nuclear weapons, is because the military balance between both countries is largely asymmetric (in the advantage of India). This explains why Pakistan has every interest to, at the early stage of a possible wider conflict, to escalate things to such extent that a symmetric balance is to be found (which it ultimately finds in its nuclear arsenal).

We see the same dynamic in the Korean theatre, where North Korea pretty much threatens to early deploy nuclear weapons in any future conflict (since the military balance in conventional sense heavily favours the US). When two opposing sides are more equal to each other though, with regards to their conventional capabilities, the threat of nuclear warfare significantly diminishes (like between the US and China).

 

[Arian]

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?

That's not true. There are quasi-ballistic missiles that their trajectory cannot be calculated beforehand. Missiles with maneuverable reentry vehicles can also change their course in terminal phase. The idea that you can calculate the trajectory of a ballistic missile with zero error precision is wrong.

Solid fueled ballistic missiles can be launched without a long preparation time. Underground silos reduce the chance of targeting them before launching.

The low altitude of flight makes a cruise missile harder to detect. Once detected, it can be shot down easily. Even jet fighters can detect and target subsonic cruise missiles. S300 can target cruise missiles at a radius of 40 kilometers, for example. But I doubt S300 can shoot down a ballistic missile with a terminal velocity of over mach 5.

I remember Haj Qasem missile costs less than $1.5M but I will wait for other Iranians to confirm.

 

[Tumba]

That's not true. There are quasi-ballistic missiles that their trajectory cannot be calculated beforehand. Missiles with maneuverable reentry vehicles can also change their course in terminal phase. The idea that you can calculate the trajectory of a ballistic missile with zero error precision is wrong.

Solid fueled ballistic missiles can be launched without a long preparation time. Underground silos reduce the chance of targeting them before launching.

The low altitude of flight makes a cruise missile harder to detect. Once detected, it can be shot down easily. Even jet fighters can detect and target subsonic cruise missiles. S300 can target cruise missiles at a radius of 40 kilometer, for example. But I doubt S300 can shoot down a ballistic missile with a terminal velocity of over mach 5.

I remember Haj Qasem missile costs less than $1.5M but I will wait for other Iranians to confirm.

Yes both BM and CM has pros n cons but generally Cruise missiles are considered to provide more survivability, control and cheaper ...
Dont know abt Iranian BMs but 700 km Agni-1 costs India around 10 million a piece .. on the other hand a Brahmose or Nirbhay costs around 2 million a piece...

 

[Arian]

Yes both BM and CM has pros n cons but generally Cruise missiles are considered to provide more survivability, control and cheaper ...
Dont know abt Iranian BMs but 700 km Agni-1 costs India around 10 million a piece .. on the other hand a Brahmose or Nirbhay costs around 2 million a piece...

Indeed. Each has their own pros and cons. The point of the discussion was not to say that ballistic missiles are superior to cruise missiles, but to state they aren't a waste of resources.

 

[ssethii]

It's not just the missile, for accuracy they may require a drone in that area so in hostile territories or without air support these missiles may not be able to achieve such pinpoint accuracy and may not be a suitable option to counter the threat.

 

[GWXP]

Yes both BM and CM has pros n cons but generally Cruise missiles are considered to provide more survivability, control and cheaper ...
Dont know abt Iranian BMs but 700 km Agni-1 costs India around 10 million a piece .. on the other hand a Brahmose or Nirbhay costs around 2 million a piece...

Cruise missile can be easily intercepted by system like Iron Dome

Ballistic missiles are much harder to intercept

Let's make an estimation of unit cost of ballistic missile.

According to this article

Time to Put China's Rocketeers on Notice

A Sea-Based Pershing II missile can blunt China's A2/AD threat and help restore regional strategic balance.

nationalinterest.org

"A 1983 Congressional Budget Office report suggests the unit cost of the Pershing II was $4.2 million, or approximately $10.1 million in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars."

^^Based on this we can make an estimation----1800km range ballistic missile costs 10,1mln$ in USA (and note that Persing II was produced in small numbers)

----I read in one article that price per ballistic missile is proportionate to its range.

So if 1800km range missile costs 10mln$ in USA,
900km range missile will cost 5mln$ per unit
and 600km range missile-3,3mln$ per unit

Now, these prices are American prices per missiles that were produced in small quantity in USA....

In Iran costs are 2-3 times lower due to cheaper production inputs and larger number of produced missiles

So if in USA ---1800km range missile costs 10mln$, 900km range missile will cost 5mln$ and 600km range missile-3,3mln$

then in Iran

Sejjil 2000km range missile costs around 4mln$ in Iran

Dezful 1000km range missile--- 2mln$

Zolfaqar 700km range missile----1,3mln$


According to CENTCOM Iran has between 2500-3000 ballistic missiles

From 1:16:33

Assuming Iran has 3000 ballistic missiles---question is: how many PAC2 and PAC3 they have in the ME?

According to this source, Saudi Arabia has 88 launchers of PAC2 and PAC3

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/...sed-by-patriot-defense-systems-saudi-reports/

^^This is 352 interceptors...since they launch 2 interceptors per target--Saudi Arabia can intercept 176 ballistic missiles...Now assuming 40% success rate..Saudi Arabia can intercept only 70 missiles, which is nothing compared to Iranian arsenal of 3000 ballistic missiles

And now, according to this source

https://www.politykainsight.pl/en/politics/politicsofmemory/_resource/multimedium/20142001

Saudi Arabia (96 launchers)+ Qatar(44 launchers) +UAE(20 launchers) + Kuwait (40 launchers) have a combined arsenal of 200 launchers and 800 interceptors, capable of intercepting 400 ballistic missiles.... and assuming 40% success rate, they can intercept only 160 ballistic missiles together.

The same source says US has 480 launchers of PAC2 and PAC3--this is 1920 interceptors capable of intercepting 960 ballistic missiles and assuming 40% success rate -only 384 ballistic missiles

So even if USA will bring all of its ABM defenses to ME ---together with GCC they can intercept 384+160=544 missiles

Compared to Iranian arsenal of 3000 ballistic missiles.

So even in worst case, if Iran will have 544 of its ballistic missiles being intercepted---another 2400 ballistic missiles will hit their targets deep inside enemy territory

 

[Tumba]

Cruise missile can be easily intercepted by system like Iron Dome

Ballistic missiles are much harder to intercept

Let's make an estimation of unit cost of ballistic missile.

According to this article

Time to Put China's Rocketeers on Notice

A Sea-Based Pershing II missile can blunt China's A2/AD threat and help restore regional strategic balance.

nationalinterest.org

"A 1983 Congressional Budget Office report suggests the unit cost of the Pershing II was $4.2 million, or approximately $10.1 million in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars."

^^Based on this we can make an estimation----1800km range ballistic missile costs 10,1mln$ in USA (and note that Persing II was produced in small numbers)

----I read in one article that price per ballistic missile is proportionate to its range.

So if 1800km range missile costs 10mln$ in USA,
900km range missile will cost 5mln$ per unit
and 600km range missile-3,3mln$ per unit

Now, these prices are American prices per missiles that were produced in small quantity in USA....

In Iran costs are 2-3 times lower due to cheaper production inputs and larger number of produced missiles

So if in USA ---1800km range missile costs 10mln$, 900km range missile will cost 5mln$ and 600km range missile-3,3mln$

then in Iran

Sejjil 2000km range missile costs around 4mln$ in Iran

Dezful 1000km range missile--- 2mln$

Zolfaqar 700km range missile----1,3mln$


According to CENTCOM Iran has between 2500-3000 ballistic missiles

From 1:16:33

Assuming Iran has 3000 ballistic missiles---question is: how many PAC2 and PAC3 they have in the ME?

According to this source, Saudi Arabia has 88 launchers of PAC2 and PAC3

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/...sed-by-patriot-defense-systems-saudi-reports/

^^This is 352 interceptors...since they launch 2 interceptors per target--Saudi Arabia can intercept 176 ballistic missiles...Now assuming 40% success rate..Saudi Arabia can intercept only 70 missiles, which is nothing compared to Iranian arsenal of 3000 ballistic missiles

And now, according to this source

https://www.politykainsight.pl/en/politics/politicsofmemory/_resource/multimedium/20142001

Saudi Arabia (96 launchers)+ Qatar(44 launchers) +UAE(20 launchers) + Kuwait (40 launchers) have a combined arsenal of 200 launchers and 800 interceptors, capable of intercepting 400 ballistic missiles.... and assuming 40% success rate, they can intercept only 160 ballistic missiles together.

The same source says US has 480 launchers of PAC2 and PAC3--this is 1920 interceptors capable of intercepting 960 ballistic missiles and assuming 40% success rate -only 384 ballistic missiles

So even if USA will bring all of its ABM defenses to ME ---together with GCC they can intercept 384+160=544 missiles

Compared to Iranian arsenal of 3000 ballistic missiles.

So even in worst case, if Iran will have 544 of its ballistic missiles being intercepted---another 2400 ballistic missiles will hit their targets deep inside enemy territory

Cruise missiles are much harder to track than a high flying projectile like BMs

Iron dome can only target if it can scan and track... no matter what no ground based radar can track terrain hugging missile with low RCS

BM has high IR signature almost projectile like path and no matter if its quasi or fully ballistic it follows set trajectory...
And both IRST and radars can scan it...

Thats the first reason Cruise missiles are much more in number than BMs in todays era..

And regarding cost you are wrong to assume a 2000 km BM will cost half as 1000 km missile..

Because its only the solid fuel will get reduced not engine not heat shielding

So the price will be reduced but not by half if 2000 km missile costs 10 million 1000 km should not cost less than 7-8 million..

Also Patriots are not specifically Anti BM system..
Thaad is more like it

 

[Aspen]

In some cases like Indo-Pak conflict, there is divergence from what you stated. If a barrage of missiles are fired from either side, nobody will wait till they absorb the strikes, we will consider them as nukes and prepare for counter-strikes (or second strike).
Then there is tactical missiles armed with un-conventional warhead. So to sum it up, it all depends upon the geographical realities of the areas of interest.
In Iran's case, missiles are very valuable in operational strategy, and should not be taboo to be used, mainly because Iran does not have nuclear capability... yet. If and when it does, missile usage will be forbidden generally.

I think that's complete bullshit. Not even US would assume a missile to automatically be a nuke. Missile capability will always be useful and can always be used, nukes don't change that at all. Nukes are the dumbest excuse I have heard for not using missiles. You do realize that missiles are used to take out other high value targets all the time.

You raise some good points.

I noted this dynamic in 2019 during the border skirmishes between Pakistan and India. If my memory serves me well, it was Pakistan that ambiguously hinted at the use of nuclear weapons if the conflict was to become more intensive. The primary motivation for Pakistan to quickly raise the stakes in any conflict with India I think, to the point of threatening to use nuclear weapons, is because the military balance between both countries is largely asymmetric (in the advantage of India). This explains why Pakistan has every interest to, at the early stage of a possible wider conflict, to escalate things to such extent that a symmetric balance is to be found (which it ultimately finds in its nuclear arsenal).

We see the same dynamic in the Korean theatre, where North Korea pretty much threatens to early deploy nuclear weapons in any future conflict (since the military balance in conventional sense heavily favours the US). When two opposing sides are more equal to each other though, with regards to their conventional capabilities, the threat of nuclear warfare significantly diminishes (like between the US and China).

I hate to be that guy but Pakistan's nukes are only a deterrent against India's nukes, not any of their other weapons.

In other words, if India fires a missile at Pakistan, we cannot retaliate with a nuke, but we can retaliate with another missile. Which is why I am extremely critical of Pakistan military for wasting so much time building up an already large nuclear arsenal that will never be used rather than focusing on building up missile and UAV arsenal that can be used which they are neglecting.

 

[PDF]

I think that's complete bullshit. Not even US would assume a missile to automatically be a nuke. Missile capability will always be useful and can always be used, nukes don't change that at all. Nukes are the dumbest excuse I have heard for not using missiles. You do realize that missiles are used to take out other high value targets all the time.


I hate to be that guy but Pakistan's nukes are only a deterrent against India's nukes, not any of their other weapons.

In other words, if India fires a missile at Pakistan, we cannot retaliate with a nuke, but we can retaliate with another missile. Which is why I am extremely critical of Pakistan military for wasting so much time building up an already large nuclear arsenal that will never be used rather than focusing on building up missile and UAV arsenal that can be used which they are neglecting.

We both then have a difference of opinion.
My context was regarding land-launched missiles.

 

[Arian]

Cruise missiles are much harder to track than a high flying projectile like BMs

Iron dome can only target if it can scan and track... no matter what no ground based radar can track terrain hugging missile with low RCS

BM has high IR signature almost projectile like path and no matter if its quasi or fully ballistic it follows set trajectory...
And both IRST and radars can scan it...

Thats the first reason Cruise missiles are much more in number than BMs in todays era..

And regarding cost you are wrong to assume a 2000 km BM will cost half as 1000 km missile..

Because its only the solid fuel will get reduced not engine not heat shielding

So the price will be reduced but not by half if 2000 km missile costs 10 million 1000 km should not cost less than 7-8 million..

Also Patriots are not specifically Anti BM system..
Thaad is more like it

You want to continue your nonsense, go on. But it seems that you have never heard of things like AWACs or OTH radars. Particularly OTH radars for the part that you claim no ground based radar can track terrain hugging missiles with low RCS.

 

[Aspen]

Here is a map I made for the range of the Khaliji-e-Fars missiles fired 1800km into Indian Ocean.

 

[ACE OF HEARTS]

Not good against EW Assets / Jamming . Good for showing off / publicity / advertisements ONLY

Iran's enemies need Iran to publicize such weapons to get FUNDING. Others are using this as an excuse to buy weapons that would be unavailable, under normal circumstances.

Indirectly, Iran is Inviting more sanctions and Uniting the Arab world against itself.

If Iran really had the guts, to really show what it can do, then certainly it would have enriched weapons grade uranium / HEU > 90 % and armed and ready > 100 of its Ballistic Missiles.

 

[Arian]

If Iran really had the guts, to really show what it can do, then certainly it would have enriched weapons grade uranium / HEU > 90 % and armed and ready > 100 of its Ballistic Missiles.

Why would Iran go for enriching uranium to 90% when enrichment to 20% is enough for producing HEU in a short time? If you have enriched uranium to 20% (HALEU), then you have already done 85% of the job for acquiring weapons grade uranium.