Iranian Chill Thread

[QWECXZ]

If 100.000 BM's were the minumum requirement to ensure Iran's safety, then yes. But since that's not the case, no, Iran probably produced less than that number.

And that's precisely the crux of the matter: with ballistic missiles, you can achieve the same result at a more affordable price.



The point is that for all practical purposes, 20.000 ballistic missiles are largely enough. Yes, the Su-30's in your example could theoretically deliver a greater amount of explosives, but in practice they never would. Will your Su-30's ever fly 4000 sorties and launch 8 x 4000 = 32.000 AGM's per aircraft? Surely not. But you'll still need to disburse several times the sum required to field 20.000 BM's in order to purchase these jets. Why discuss overkill scenarii? We should stay focused on realistic projections.

As for the estimates published by the Pentagon about the size of Iran's BM arsenal, I wouldn't take them too seriously. They've systematical had a policy of minimizing Iranian power, no matter in which area (even when it came to the number of operational F-14, we remember well how Iran ridiculed they made fools out of themselves when the IRIAF flew a large formation of Tomcats over Tehran some decades ago, directly proving wrong an aforegone estimate coming out of America).

Realistically, if Iran spends $10 billion dollars on its air force to upgrade it to today's standards, it can pay off extremely well for Iran's regional power and it will give Iran offensive power as well. Right now Iran's strategy is mainly defensive, focused on asymmetric warfare against enemies such as the United States while Iran refrains from reacting to the provocations of its regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

 

[Blue In Green]

If 100.000 BM's were the minumum requirement to ensure Iran's safety, then yes. But since that's not the case, no, Iran probably produced less than that number.

And that's precisely the crux of the matter: with ballistic missiles, you can achieve a similar overall outcome at a more affordable price.



The point is that for all practical purposes, 20.000 ballistic missiles should be sufficient. Yes, the Su-30's in your example could theoretically deliver a greater amount of explosives, but in practice they never would. Will your Su-30's ever fly 4000 sorties and launch 8 x 4000 = 32.000 AGM's per aircraft? Surely not. But in order to purchase and operate these jets, you'll still need to disburse several times the sum required to field 20.000 BM's. Why discuss overkill scenarii? We should stay focused on realistic projections.

As for the estimates published by the Pentagon about the size of Iran's BM arsenal, I wouldn't take them all too seriously. They've systematical had a policy of minimizing Iranian power, no matter in which area (even when it came to the number of operational F-14's, we remember well how they made fools out of themselves when the IRIAF flew a large formation of Tomcats over Tehran some decades ago, directly proving wrong a previous estimate coming out of America). So if they talk of 5000 missiles, we can be as good as certain that the actual number is several times that.

An arsenal in the tens of thousands range is well within Iran's capabilities. Iran has been mass producing and stockpiling these for some 20 years now. I remember Shamkhani stating in the early 2000's that they're producing these like noghlo nabat. Ten thousand missile in two decades, that's 500 a year or just below 42 a month... Frankly, it seems obvious to me that this would not even represent such an extraordinary feat for Iran. Personally I believe Iran has some 20.000 ballistic missiles at least.

Also we need to ponder the quantity of missiles which could be produced with the enormous funds Iran allocated to this sector.

Agreed, although Iran still needs a healthy injection of modern air-fighters that can further help secure airspace during peace/wartime.

Iran's current inventory of air-worthy fighters simply do not have the capability (outside of a few select cases with the F-14) to engage, much less secure Iranian skies when under sustained attack. More advanced Su-30 variants or the Su-35 will provide a substantial increase in much needed defense capabilities.

Although I don't think any deal with be inked anytime soon between I.R.I. and the Russian Federation.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Realistically, if Iran spends $10 billion dollars on its air force to upgrade it to today's standards, it can pay off extremely well for Iran's regional power and it will give Iran offensive power as well. Right now Iran's strategy is mainly defensive, focused on asymmetric warfare against enemies such as the United States while Iran refrains from reacting to the provocations of its regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Well, 10 billion USD is a very large sum, half of Iran's entire annual defence budget. Iran will only invest such sums into a project if it deems it to be cost-effective enough. Ergo, the question will be what additional, concrete and assured benefit will it bring? It rather be thoroughly game changing with such an amount. Personally, I believe three to four squadrons of a new high-end, heavy interceptor might be considered worth the investment. But not much beyond that, considering already existing capabilities.

Concerning Saudi provocations, Iran put them in their place with the Abqaiq strike - whether conducted directly by Iran or by Yemeni allies. They did not dare to retaliate and lost face. The weapons employed provided plausible deniability, something a bombing raid by fighter jets wouldn't have offered. In addition, using the air force would have been politically more hazardous.

Iran could have dispatched a contingent of F-4 and Su-24 as well as some F-14's to Syria - the reason it refrained from doing so wasn't technical but political. Such a move would have triggered escalation from the opponent (I mean their international backers) and this in turn wouldn't have played out to Iran's advantage. Iran could better operate under prevailing conditions.

As for the zionists, again I don't think their actions would best have been answered by an air force attack. Instead Iran opted for the adequate means, tit for tat action in the oil tanker war, special forces raids and UCAV strikes as against the Mossad / CIA base at Erbil, etc. This is a covert confrontation in essence.

 

[Blue In Green]

Realistically, if Iran spends $10 billion dollars on its air force to upgrade it to today's standards, it can pay off extremely well for Iran's regional power and it will give Iran offensive power as well. Right now Iran's strategy is mainly defensive, focused on asymmetric warfare against enemies such as the United States while Iran refrains from reacting to the provocations of its regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

One could argue that, with the reveal of KheybarShekaan, you can being to see what a "winning" formula using Ballistic missiles looks like.

But I am more on the skeptical side since missiles alone will not just win a war, especially if the conflict is protracted. War is an ecosystem all of its own. So naturally, many factors of it need to be catered to and developed so it translates to on the field success.

 

[Stryker1982]

Realistically, if Iran spends $10 billion dollars on its air force to upgrade it to today's standards, it can pay off extremely well for Iran's regional power and it will give Iran offensive power as well. Right now Iran's strategy is mainly defensive, focused on asymmetric warfare against enemies such as the United States while Iran refrains from reacting to the provocations of its regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Ground forces are also in terrible shape.

 

[Blue In Green]

Ground forces are also in terrible shape.

lmao, dadash it's worse than that.

The two most neglected arms of Iran's armed forces are the Artesh ground forces (where are those damn karrars lol) and the Air-force. They simple lack the funding which is mainly going into, albeit important missile development/production of the IRGC.

It's hard since the money is so strained but we should be extremely proud of what the IRIAF has been able to achieve with its literal shoe-string budget lol.

 

[Stryker1982]

lmao, dadash it's worse than that.

The two most neglected arms of Iran's armed forces are the Artesh ground forces (where are those damn karrars lol) and the AIr-force. They simple lack the funding which is mainly going into, albeit important missile development/production of the IRGC.

It's hard since the money is so strained but we should be extremely proud of what the IRIAF has been able to achieve with its literal shoe-string budget lol.

Yeah, one should ask why is money so strained exactly? Being one of the most resource rich countries in the world.

MAYBE, the relationship with China will pay dividends some day, but otherwise it will continue to get worse. Their is virtually no capability for offensive ground ops.

Luckily no one has taken advantage of this, the neglect and poor training of ground forces might be problematic one day, and the military leadership thinks we are so stupid we don't notice.

I can't even imagine Iran being able to run an operation like Russia is doing in Ukraine.

 

[QWECXZ]

Well, 10 billion USD is a very large sum, half of Iran's entire yearly defence budget. Iran will only invest such sums into a project if it deems it to be cost-effective enough. Ergo, the question will be what additional, concrete and guaranteed benefit will it bring? It rather be thoroughly game changing at this amount. Personally, I believe three to four squadrons of a new high-end heavy interceptor might be considered worth the investment. But not much beyond that, considering already existing capabilities.

Concerning Saudi provocations, Iran put them in their place with the Abqaiq strike - whether conducted directly by Iran or by Yemeni allies. They did not dare to retaliate and lost their face. The weapons employed offered plausible deniability, something a bombing raid by fighter jets wouldn't have offered, in addition to being politically more hazardous.

As for the zionists, again I don't think their actions would best have been answered by an air force attack. Instead Iran opted for the adequate means, tit for tat action in the oil tanker war, special forces raids and UCAV strikes as against the Mossad / CIA base at Erbil, etc. This is a covert confrontation in essence.

Well, I just said what benefit it can bring. It will give Iran the capability to deliver a much larger destructive power to its regional enemies. You'll need a million of surface-to-surface missiles to do what a decent air force can do in a prolonged war. Fortunately Iran faces no credible threat of military invasion now, but if some day it happens, missiles will work only in short term. You cannot fight an 8 year war with missiles only. Although our missiles can inflict so much damage in the initial stages of the war that a prolonged war is unlikely, but it's still a possibility.

Is $10 billion a lot for the national security of a country? Certainly not. Even authorities in Iran on numerous occasions have claimed that Iran has spent more in the Syrian war alone. So, if Iran can spend as high as $40 billion in regional wars after the Syrian civil war, why can we not spend it on our own air force?

We need more than just S300 and Bavar 373 to secure our air space. Had Iran had a powerful air force, shooting down the Ukrainian passenger plane might've never happened because our jet fighters would've been protecting our skies to shoot down cruise missiles.

Also, even without ToT, acquiring new jet fighters may give our engineers some ideas about how to develop an indigenous fighter jet. Something other than copies of F5.

 

[Blue In Green]

Yeah, one should ask why is money so strained exactly? Being one of the most resource rich countries in the world.

MAYBE, the relationship with China will pay dividends some day, but otherwise it will continue to get worse. Their is virtually no capability for offensive ground ops.

Luckily no one has taken advantage of this, the neglect and poor training of ground forces might be problematic one day, and the military leadership thinks we are so stupid we don't notice.

I can't even imagine Iran being able to run an operation like Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Iran can target and obliterate way more targets with its massive BM, cruise and drone arsenal (larger missile arsenal than Russia probably) but the Russians are choosing to stay their hand in order to mitigate collateral damage since they are the ones who have to deal with the Ukrainian people after all the dust settles.

 

[Stryker1982]

Iran can target and obliterate way more targets with its massive BM, cruise and drone arsenal (larger missile arsenal than Russia probably) but the Russians are choosing to stay their hand in order to mitigate collateral damage since they are the ones who have to deal with the Ukrainian people after all the dust settles.

I'm aware, but not only is our ISR capability poor (we have no satellite network of intelligence gathering tools and communications), theirs nothing to follow up. No airforce raids, no ground incursions. or VDV-like, air assault brigades because our helicopters are few and in poor condition, and we cannot escort them into enemy territory or with our C-130's.

If the US or some other country drops 1000 Javelins into a country we are about to engage in a ground war with, good luck..

They tried this with Ukraine delivering 1000s of pieces of the latest Gen anti-armor and it doesn't appear to be too successful. Contrast to what happened to Syrian armour

 

[SalarHaqq]

But I am more on the skeptical side since missiles alone will not just win a war, especially if the conflict is protracted. War is an ecosystem all of its own. So naturally, many factors of it need to be catered to and developed so it translates to on the field success.

Protracted war is excluded by Iran's A2/AD capability. This has caused even the US to forego the military option, let alone its regional clients.

 

[Blue In Green]

I'm aware, but not only is our ISR capability poor (we have no satellite network of intelligence gathering tools and communications), theirs nothing to follow up. No airforce raids, no ground incursions. or VDV-like, air assault brigades because our helicopters are few and in poor condition, and we cannot escort them into enemy territory or with our C-130's.

If the US or some other country drops 1000 Javelins into a country we are about to engage in a ground war with, good luck..

They tried this with Ukraine delivering 1000s of pieces of the latest Gen anti-armor and it doesn't appear to be too successful. Contrast to what happened to Syrian armour

Yeah, I can't argue against that.

I'm also quite worried about Iran's overall real-time intelligence gathering capabilities they still have yet to set-up a bonafide constellation of recon-sats.

Protracted war is excluded by Iran's A2/AD capability. This has caused even the US to forego the military option, let alone its regional clients.

A2/D2 abilities, whilst an important part of the modern Iranian defense literature, will be subjected to attrition the longer any conflict goes. There is no guarantee that the Americans (hypothetically) wont manage to launch a massive and comprehensive strike destroying/crippling many missile launching sites and bases in the first hours of conflict.

This is why a modern air-force, complete with air-tankers, AWACS, long-range RADARS and top-of-the-line fighters is so important. There still needs to be a conventional answer the the enemies air-force.

 

[QWECXZ]

Protracted war is excluded by Iran's A2/AD capability. This has caused even the US to forego the military option, let alone its regional clients.

The US is not right next to us. Sure, they have tens of military bases here, but at the end of the day, the logistics it takes for the US to engage in a prolonged war with us is insane and not doable. However, think about Turkey, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. A prolonged war is possible if both sides are stupid enough to continue the war. And the Middle East is prone to the rise of people like Saddam.

 

[Stryker1982]

I'm also quite worried about Iran's overall real-time intelligence gathering capabilities they still have yet to set-up a bonafide constellation of recon-sats.

Atleast we are seeing some good signs here with the creation of the Raafe motor.

I think it's possible we can start to see a dedicated SLV platform based on the Raafe that will launch the whole constellation. I suppose the next hardest part is building good and useful satellites, but I think atleat this is a road I am confident they are moving towards especially with the new space station they are building near Tehran.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Well, I just said what benefit it can bring. It will give Iran the capability to deliver a much larger destructive power to its regional enemies. You'll need a million of surface-to-surface missiles to do what a decent air force can do in a prolonged war.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the American and British air forces dropped below 30K bombs. This is less than the number of bombs a single Su-30 in your example was said to be able to deliver in its lifetime. In other terms, the figures you cited weren't those of a realistic scenario but theoretical in essence. Also, the 2003 attack on Iraq was an invasion, Iran doesn't intend to invade and occupy its neighbors. Even for occasional offensive, punitive action, several tens of thousands of BM's will do the trick.

You cannot fight an 8 year war with missiles only. Although our missiles can inflict so much damage in the initial stages of the war that a prolonged war is unlikely, but it's still a possibility.

I will go farther and submit that the potential damage caused by these missiles is such that it will prevent aggression against Iran for the foreseeable future.

Is $10 billion a lot for the national security of a country? Certainly not. Even authorities in Iran on numerous occasions have claimed that Iran has spent more in the Syrian war alone. So, if Iran can spend as high as $40 billion in regional wars after the Syrian civil war, why can we not spend it on our own air force?

It's 10 billion on top of the current budget.