Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bro, these missiles are too big to have 6 per truck. You would need one giant truck for that. Maybe in the future they will increase the number to 3. But I rather have 2 missiles on 3 truck than 6 missiles on one truck. Higher survivability and also smaller truck means easier mobility.
They usually have supply trucks following or at near distance. Even Katyusha has an automatic loader which feeds in and follows the truck and usually has at least two sets of rounds. They don't move the well calculated spot or hiding place and take the supply truck to it. Anyway, the fear of being exposed always exists.Well I was talking about the same truck or the old Mercedes LK series. I don't see any issues in terms 'fitting' them, as in the amount of space available. Keep in mind that the rectangular canisters will obviate the need for the launch rail, which will allow the missiles to sit much closer to the truck bed, making it possible to stack anohter row of canisters on top of the first. The whole thing will be raised and lowered with a hydraulic arm, much like dump truck.
However, I looked up the weight of each missile and at about 3500 kg each, 6 may be about the weight limit this type of truck can carry. But I don't see whey they wouldn't be able to carry 4 a piece.
However, I still don't understand your strategy of preferring fewer missiles per TEL. TELs are usually the bottleneck in a war. In the Iraq war, the US was especially keen to find and take out these TELs, whether they were carrying missilies or not. Because usually, there are far fewer of them than missiles. And without them, the missiles are useless. And they're much easier to find and take out, than stored missiles. So they're sort of the weak link the chain. So why would you want to maximize your risk by forcing them to come out and expose themselves by going for twice as many re-ups for the same number of shots? How is that a more intelligent use of your assets?
However, I still don't understand your strategy of preferring fewer missiles per TEL. TELs are usually the bottleneck in a war. In the Iraq war, the US was especially keen to find and take out these TELs, whether they were carrying missilies or not. Because usually, there are far fewer of them than missiles. And without them, the missiles are useless. And they're much easier to find and take out, than stored missiles. So they're sort of the weak link the chain. So why would you want to maximize your risk by forcing them to come out and expose themselves by going for twice as many re-ups for the same number of shots? How is that a more intelligent use of your assets?
In addition to what you said. When you have two on a truck you want to be able to aim them independently. This is possible with two on a truck but having 6 on a truck it is not feasible. For example the Iskandir launcher has a 2 on a truck version with independant launches. Systems that put multiple missiles on a platform usually either are multiple systems (independent aiming) or for killing a target it would require firing multiple at same target, which is not an issue for pin point missiles like this.Bro, I already answered this and you have as well.
Having 2 missiles on 3 trucks is better than 6 missiles per 1 truck because survivability is a one big factor. Would you rather have 6 missiles on one truck and then if that one truck gets destroyed, then what?
These Zolfiqar class trucks seem quite nimble and mobile and probably very cheap for them to produce. From you comment it seems you're assuming having more trucks for firing is increasing the risk. I certainly don't see this. I would think having your 6 missiles on one truck is a big risk because all the enemy has to do is destroy that one truck and 6 missile are gone. But obviously I can't speak Iranian military officials, to really know what they're thinking, one would have to ask them.
With composite skin they would roll these missiles like sandwiches at a very low price. "Give two Fateh 313 with side salad and fries please for our brothers at Saudi Air base" ...
No more help to hamas. They eat our Homos and kiss Saudi Ham flavored a_s_s. No more for HamAss. Iran strategy is to defuse palestinian issue and help the two state solution inline with USA, so Israel has no more excuse not helping the process. Mahmoud Abbas would be helped financially and politically to achieve this unless Israel attacks again but it has already paid a dear PR price for last war so I don't think there's a war anytime soon.Good Job now please give this to Hamas
In addition to what you said. When you have two on a truck you want to be able to aim them independently. This is possible with two on a truck but having 6 on a truck it is not feasible. For example the Iskandir launcher has a 2 on a truck version with independant launches. Systems that put multiple missiles on a platform usually either are multiple systems (independent aiming) or for killing a target it would require firing multiple at same target, which is not an issue for pin point missiles like this.
The loading is not an issue as it is always accompanied by close supply truck anyway.
With composite skin they would roll these missiles like sandwiches at a very low price. "Give two Fateh 313 with side salad and fries please for our brothers at Saudi Air base" ...
No more help to hamas. They eat our Homos and kiss Saudi Ham flavored a_s_s. No more for HamAss. Iran strategy is to defuse palestinian issue and help the two state solution inline with USA, so Israel has no more excuse not helping the process. Mahmoud Abbas would be helped financially and politically to achieve this unless Israel attacks again but it has already paid a dear PR price for last war so I don't think there's a war anytime soon.
With composite skin they would roll these missiles like sandwiches at a very low price. "Give two Fateh 313 with side salad and fries please for our brothers at Saudi Air base" ...
no shit !!“We assess that Iran has begun to stockpile them,”
no shit !!
your assessment is so F-ing shocking man
S.O.A.P. whats their plan now doctor ? @The Last of us @Daneshmand
RPO ?
Bro, I already answered this and you have as well.
Having 2 missiles on 3 trucks is better than 6 missiles per 1 truck because survivability is a one big factor. Would you rather have 6 missiles on one truck and then if that one truck gets destroyed, then what?
These Zolfiqar class trucks seem quite nimble and mobile and probably very cheap for them to produce. From you comment it seems you're assuming having more trucks for firing is increasing the risk. I certainly don't see this. I would think having your 6 missiles on one truck is a big risk because all the enemy has to do is destroy that one truck and 6 missile are gone. But obviously I can't speak Iranian military officials, to really know what they're thinking, one would have to ask them.
I see! So you in your analysis, the value of one or two missiles outweighs that of the TEL. Therefore, it's better not to load up the TELs, for fear of losing too many missiles, if one is hit.
Well I couldn't disagree more! The best analogy I can think of to demonstrate my point is the relationship between a bow and arrows. You always have a greater number of arrows than bows. You lose a few arrows, no problem! You lose your bow, you're out of action.
Don't forget, these are not strategic missiles. They're short range tactical weapons. They are meant be used in quantity.
Our future wars will likely be fought either with the US or countries benefiting from US weaponry, tactics and infrastructural support. That implies a short, high intensity war in which we will most likely lose air superiority very quickly. They will look for the weak links in our military supply chain and take them out as high priority targets. You think the problem is solved by sending supply trucks out to the TELs? Well they will just target the supply trucks which will necessarily have to spend the majority of their time on the road, under open skies.
You gotta stop thinking about our future conflicts in terms of Iran-Iraq war, where neither party fully controlled the skies and the intensity was nowhere near what the Iraqi and Yugoslav militaries experienced in the 90s.
So as a military strategist, the question I would be asking myself would be the following: In a high intensity combat environment, would I prefer to have my TELs take two shots at the enemy and then stay out of action, until such time that they're resupplied or destroyed? Or, for the same risk, do I maximize their fire volume to help achieve my objectives as quickly as possible, before my assets are taken out?
Bro, don't you think your analogy proves my point? If your bow/truck gets destroyed then you're screwed. Thus, it is better to have more bows at your disposable then. Anyway, I don't consider your analogy an accurate representation because you can't assume you will have more arrows to fire than me overall. Thus, a better representation would be to consider the number of archers. In my case, I would have 3 times more archers each carrying 3 times less arrows. This is what I am saying. Have a higher number of trucks, to increase survivability in war time. Now, regarding supply trucks, I don't know how resupplying would be done so I can't really comment on that. There is no reason to assume resupplying one truck with six missile will necessarily be easier, faster, higher chance of survival etc than 3 truck with two missiles.
I just don't see what benefit having 6 missiles on a truck would have. It's not like in your case you would overall be firing more missiles. if we have total six missiles, you would be firing them all from one truck, and I would be firing the 6 missiles but from 3 different zolfiqar TEL. And of course, in your scenario of enemies having more control over the air, then if they spot one of your trucks and destroyed it then 6 missiles are gone, whereas in my case, the missiles are more spread out so it would naturally be more difficult for them to destroy the same number of missiles. And to reiterate, having six such missile per truck, would require a much bigger truck relative to the zolfiqar. So then we would have consider the survivability of such larger systems.
To sum up, I think Iran's decision to go with a TEL carrying 2 missile is a wise decision. Could they increase to to 3 etc? Yes, but I am not desperate for such a change and don't see it as necessary and evidently, neither do they.
So we just have to agree to disagree