Iranian Chill Thread

[Blue In Green]

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.

It should be noted that the USN/USAF along with regional forces can stage several carrier strike groups outside Iran's missile envelope and launch a high sortie rate/sustained bombing campaign whilst eating their own losses if they view the outcome to be worth it.

 

[SalarHaqq]

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.

Their air forces will be neutered by Iran's A2/AD capability. Attacking infantry by UAV's and Iranian ground forces.

 

[QWECXZ]

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.

This too. We can't rely only on our UAVs for surveillance. We certainly cannot use F4 for surveillance. So, yeah. It should be one of our top priorities and we're seeing slow progress in this regard unfortunately.

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 evoked 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.

Iraq surrendered in 3 weeks and showed little to no resistance. The country had collapsed already both economically and psychologically. Most of the war was steamrolling for the coalition forces.

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.

This is a theory that hopefully will never be put to test, but sanity says that we should be well-prepared for all scenarios. You can't just assume things when it comes to national security.

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

Yes, but it's worth it. And we can reduce our military involvement in Syria already. The war has reached a stalemate and Assad is not going anywhere, and neither is he going to kick Turkey out and unify Syria again.

 

[Stryker1982]

It should be noted that, however unrealistic, the USN can stage several carrier strike groups outside Iran's missile envelope and launch a high sortie rate/sustained bombing campaign whilst eating their own losses if they view the outcome to be worth it.

Nothing stopping them from emptying out their bases.
Relentless cruise missile assault with B-52's
And low flying special forces insertion.
Theirs poor AD and radar coverage in large parts of the country. Essentially because of the lack of aircraft, all AD's are point defence system. Hence why the Shah understood the value of F-14's to support the rest of this enormous country.

 

[QWECXZ]

Their air forces will be neutered by Iran's A2/AD capability. Attacking infantry by UAV's and Iranian ground forces.

You can hit their airports but in a prolonged war, airports will be repaired and will become operational again after days or weeks.

 

[SalarHaqq]

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.

Attrition would equal failure of this particular aspect of Iran's strategy, which around inflicting prohibitive costs on the enemy during the initial shock. US reluctance to launch military aggression against Iran suggests that they do not think the potential risk is worth it. This even holds true of trigger happy presidents like Bush junior and his neocon handlers as well as Trump.

 

[Mata Elang]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497344191474528258

maybe 125 troop were killed

 

[Stryker1982]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497344191474528258

maybe 125 troop were killed

Disastrous, mind blowing that an IL-76 would be flying anywhere Kiev at this time.

Let's see if true.

 

[Blue In Green]

Attrition would equal failure of Iran's strategy. The latter revolves around inflicting prohibitive costs on the enemy during the initial shock. US reluctance to launch military aggression against Iran suggests that they do not think the potential risk is worth it. This even holds true of trigger happy presidents like Bush junior and his neocon handlers as well as Trump.

Well said, this is why the concept of "conventional counter-force" and deterrence ensured by the immense Ballistic Missile fleet needs to be understood and at least mentioned when bringing up the feasibility of any sort of aggression against Iranian soil.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iraq surrendered in 3 weeks and showed little to no resistance. The country had collapsed already both economically and psychologically. Most of the war was steamrolling for the coalition forces.

The US intended to test out and make a point about the supposed supremacy of its air power reliant doctrine. Add to it their low tolerance for casualties. As a result, it's probable that many more bombs were dropped than theoretically necessary.

This is a theory that hopefully will never be put to test, but sanity says that we should be well-prepared for all scenarios. You can't just assume things when it comes to national security.

In that case you can always doubt how secure you really are. Factual experience is the best indicator in this regard. The facts are:

1) Iran has been the biggest prize for the enemy since 9-11.
2) The enemy hasn't resorted to the military option.
3) Iran's position towards the enemy has been getting stronger with time.

So I'd argue Iranian decision makers and planners can be trusted. What they have achieved against all odds is unique, especially considering the complexities involved.

Yes, but it's worth it. And we can reduce our military involvement in Syria already. The war has reached a stalemate and Assad is not going anywhere, and neither is he going to kick Turkey out and unify Syria again.

I'm sure Iran will not be spending more than necessary on its military presence in Syria. And some form of Iranian boots on the ground will act as another deterrent versus the zionists and by extension the Americans.

Many factors must be taken into account when increasing the defense budget in such a manner, foremost political ones. Ten additional billions spent on the air force means slashing ten billions elsewhere. This too could negatively affect the stability and security of the country, albeit in an indirect way.

You can hit their airports but in a prolonged war, airports will be repaired and will become operational again after days or weeks.

If sirens ring every hour due to an incoming BM, their operation will be heavily compromised. Control, logistic, support and maintenance facilities at air bases can also be targeted, these are more time consuming and complicated to replace.

 

[Hack-Hook]

BUK are following these convoys but as long as air superiority hasn’t been fully established easy to pick off convoys especially with suicide drones and TB2 like MALE UAVs. But the BUK needs to be deployed.

The solution would be something like a majid or mobile air defense system that can move and track targets, stop quickly and fire

Even then all you need is a few small suicide drones to get thru and cause major damage to a convoy. And if it’s a fighter jet dropping a payload forget about it, they can drop glide bombs from 75KM away. Tough for any battery to intercept a tiny glide bomb.

What is concerning is S-400/S-500 might not be the powerhouse system we were told. Because if S-400 is deployed on Belarus side and on Russian side all of Eastern Ukraine should be a no fly zone for any Ukraine helicopter or fighter jets. So unless Ukraine has found a way to avoid their targeting radars, something doesn’t make sense.

buk is not designed for that role , the role belonged to Tor

 

[Hack-Hook]

Their air forces will be neutered by Iran's A2/AD capability. Attacking infantry by UAV's and Iranian ground forces.

not so sure about it.
have you forget in Armenia war one Azerbaijan drone penetrated 100km inside Iran . Our air defense is not as tight as you think

 

[Mata Elang]

For the first time, Ukraine retaliated against a Russian air base using the OTR-21 Tochka ballistic missile. The air base suffered some damage, at least one Sukhoi Su-30SM 'Flanker-H' of the 31st Guards Airborne Combat Aviation Regiment of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) caught fire.

 

[SalarHaqq]

not so sure about it.
have you forget in Armenia war one Azerbaijan drone penetrated 100km inside Iran . Our air defense is not as tight as you think

I'm mostly talking about how Iran's ballistic missiles will preemptively flatten their air bases, making it impossible for them to fly the number of sorties necessary to make a difference.

Of course some drones could get through, but good luck achieving with drones alone what their air forces might if it weren't for Iran's massive missile power.

And then, Iran has lots of UAV's too. More than any one of her regional antagonists, in all probability. Knowing that AD-wise, none of them are as tightly defended as Iran.

 

[Mata Elang]

Brave Ukrainian woman, you should hear what she has to say