Iranian Chill Thread

sha ah · Feb 27, 2022

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497162051973783553

SalarHaqq · Feb 27, 2022

QWECXZ said:
And we have people here like @SalarHaqq who think +5,000 (let's say 20,000) missiles will be enough to cripple not only all US bases in the neighboring countries to as far as Diego Garcia, but they think we can also cripple our neighbor's infrastructures as well and force them to end the war.

From places as distant as Diego Garcia, the US will not be able to generate sufficient sortie rates to achieve any meaningful war objetive against Iran. If their fighters return intact from their missions, that is.

QWECXZ said:
And when I show them calculations, to which they do not object, that we'll need at least 2,000,000 missiles to do what a decent air force can do in a prolonged war, they say we won't need that much destructive power because the war will end soon. This kind of thinking is very dangerous for Iran's national security.

As said, in a prolonged war missiles again will be far more survivable than fighter jets, even against neighboring states. In your calculation, it will be enough for the enemy to take out a single Su-30 jet to deprive Iran of 32.000 potentially dropped bombs... Hit ten, and it's bye bye 320.000 theoretical future strikes in that calculation. Good luck locating, tracking and succesfully eliminating 32.000 or even 10.000 ballistic missiles, on the other hand.

When it comes to neighbors, simply put there's strictly nothing they could do against Iran's missile cities: these can only be disrupted by nuclear weapons, if at all. A static airbase however will always remain a potential target. So will an aircraft entering the enemy's AD kill zones and interceptor-protected air space to launch its A2G munitions. With missiles however, you target them from a much more secure distance.

Also, in a war no air force drops 2 million bombs or actually 3 to 4 million bombs (since each bomb will have smaller warheads and kinetic power than a ballistic mssile).

Whatever the air force can achieve in the strike role, a combination of standoff ballistic missiles plus cruise missiles and drones can in a more secure and thus cheaper way.

QWECXZ · Feb 27, 2022

SalarHaqq said:
As said, in a prolonged war missiles again will be much more survivable than fighter jets. Even against neighboring states. And in your calculation, it will be enough for the enemy to take out a single Su-30 jet to deprive Iran of 32.000 potentially dropped bombs... Good luck locating and succesfully eliminating 32.000 or even 10.000 ballistic missiles, on the other hand.

Also, in a war no air force drops 2 million bombs or actually 3 to 4 million bombs (since each bomb will have smaller warheads and kinetic power than a ballistic mssile).

Whatever the air force can achieve, a combination of standoff ballistic missiles plus cruise missiles and drones can in a more secure and thus cheaper manner.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Yeah, good luck locating and eliminating 32,000 missiles, but good luck producing 32,000 missiles in the first place. Even Iranian military analysts here do not think we have over 20,000 missiles, after decades of R&D and missile production. If a fighter jet is destroyed, it can be replaced after weeks or months. If you run out of 32,000 missiles, it will take decades to replace them.

Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are by no means, in any way, a replacement for an air force. Not even close. And they are not cheaper either.

Just one US base in our neighbor needs more than 100 ballistic missiles to get completely destroyed. And the US has too many bases in our vicinity. Our missiles will run out fast and obviously some of our missiles will malfunction instead of reaching their intended targets. Hence, the longer the war lasts, the harder it will be for us.

TheImmortal · Feb 27, 2022

QWECXZ said:
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Yeah, good luck locating and eliminating 32,000 missiles, but good luck producing 32,000 missiles in the first place. Even Iranian military analysts here do not think we have over 20,000 missiles, after decades of R&D and missile production. If a fighter jet is destroyed, it can be replaced after weeks or months. If you run out of 32,000 missiles, it will take decades to replace them.

Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are by no means, in any way, a replacement for an air force. Not even close. And they are not cheaper either.

Just one US base in our neighbor needs more than 100 ballistic missiles to get completely destroyed. And the US has too many bases in our vicinity. Our missiles will run out fast and obviously some of our missiles will malfunction instead of reaching their intended targets. Hence, the longer the war lasts, the harder it will be for us.

20,000 missiles? I would be suprised if Iran has even 10,000.

Iranian production from 2000-2010 was very low and mostly crappy Shahab-3 early gens.

The best Iran can hope TODAY is a monthly production of 50 missiles (from Fateh to Shahab-3 family). Which would be VERY impressive.

100,000 missiles would require a production of 1,000 missiles a month and a 10 year timeline. Iran is no where close to such production capability. Even China couldn’t do that today.

SalarHaqq · Feb 27, 2022

QWECXZ said:
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Yeah, good luck locating and eliminating 32,000 missiles, but good luck producing 32,000 missiles in the first place. Even Iranian military analysts here do not think we have over 20,000 missiles, after decades of R&D and missile production.

If true this would imply that Iran, which has been able to churn out close to 100.000 automobiles a month, could not manufacture less than one thousandth that number in terms of ballistic missiles, despite the fact that this is where the largest portion of Iran's defence spendings went into for more than twenty years. But I don't think so.

QWECXZ said:
If a fighter jet is destroyed, it can be replaced after weeks or months. If you run out of 32,000 missiles, it will take decades to replace them.

Where is Iran going to source brand new fighter jets on a weekly basis from, upon simple demand?

QWECXZ said:
Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are by no means, in any way, a replacement for an air force. Not even close. And they are not cheaper either.

Just one US base in our neighbor needs more than 100 ballistic missiles to get completely destroyed. And the US has too many bases in our vicinity. Our missiles will run out fast and obviously some of our missiles will malfunction instead of reaching their intended targets. Hence, the longer the war lasts, the harder it will be for us.

It isn't necessary to raze an entire air base to the ground: destroy its key control rooms (killing trained operators too), logistics and aircraft maintenance facilities, power supplies, radars, hit aircraft located out in the open (at Ayn al-Assad, one or several helicopters were struck, this much they did admit).

Secondly, target runways. It takes more than just a few minutes to repair these, no matter what they say. When they are in the process of doing so, lob another batch of precision-guided missiles and/or (suicide) drones towards the very same spot, killing the specialized repair teams and smashing their tools.

Thirdly, disrupt regular air base operations with high frequency attacks. The base will not be able to function by its normal capacity if every 30 minutes or every single hour, just one approaching ballistic missile is detected. Regardless if it gets intercepted or not, when sirens ring and nobody knows what exact point the missile is programmed to impact at, a good portion of the personnel and material will have to be moved into shelters.

Not every US base in the vicinity is a mega-base like Ayn al-Assad. The main thrust of their efforts would emanate from a rather limited number of key installations capable of hosting such a force.

And the goal for Iran won't be to annihilate every piece of equipment the enemy would be fielding, an impossible and irrational venture anyway, especially when the enemy is the US military. The objective will be to raise the costs of aggression to (politically / socially if not economically) unbearable levels and make it impossible for the adversary to reach its predefined aims.

Whatever fighter jet force Iran may assemble in the foreseeable future, against USAF interceptors it likely won't stand a chance and will be neutered quite rapidly. Hardened underground missile cities, missile farms, mobile TEL's disguised as civilian trucks in the thousands, plus thousands of cruise missiles and UAV's however not so. They will survive in large enough quantities and long enough to conduct continuous, intensive enough counter-strikes.

Symmetrical approach grounded in the belief that the Americans can be defeated on their own turf, ie where their strengths actually lie, is a misconception. To come out on top, Iran has no choice but to confront the US in an asymmetrical manner.

Cthulhu · Feb 27, 2022

Honestly, If someone in Iran is looking at the situation in Ukraine and then goes around and advocates against getting nukes, He is either a dumbass with 2 digits of IQ or a traitor.

TheImmortal · Feb 27, 2022

SalarHaqq said:
If true this would imply that Iran, which has been able to churn out close to 100.000 automobiles a month

Comparing BM production to Automobile is absurd. One is mass production on an assembly line. The other is mostly manual labor assembly with meticulous quality control measures along the whole assembly stage.

Not even China has that many tactical BMs and they mass produce anything and everything.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497964768958857222

320 missiles didn’t do much to Ukraine. So those here thinking 320 missiles will somehow disable Saudi Arabia/UAE/Qatar are on crack.

Better to just target all the oil terminals and oil fields and cause global energy spike

TheImmortal · Feb 27, 2022

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497976521927147522

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497968615412359170

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497975096035717126

Blue In Green · Feb 27, 2022

TheImmortal said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1497976521927147522

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497968615412359170

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497975096035717126

How in the holy-hell did the Russians not manage to destroy the Ukrainian air-force? They're suffering totally unnecessary losses due to their inept military planning. Wtf....

And once again the Bayraktar TB2 is still in the sky over Ukraine..... Wow. I assume the bulk of these system were moved prior to the initial strike wave since Ukrainian armed forces are being fed up-to-date intel from EU and US intelligence (which is better than Russias). Begs the questions of just how many more air-assets have and are continuing to survive in Ukraine.

ahaider97 said:
Importance and relevance of conventional capability should be the most important lesson of this war. Air superiority is critical to protect troops and equipment on ground. I was of the opinion that Iranian missiles were an effective deterrence but now I think they are not enough. Iranians should start focusing on Artesh now, more tanks, artillery, jets etc. Numbers are also very important. I think a jet like JF 17 in large numbers would do Iranians good. But given the geography of Iran. dual engine jets might be needed.

Agreed, there needs to be a change in pace within Iranian defense spending that includes bolstering the more traditional conventional armed forces.

JF-17 would be a welcome addition but not a "needed" one since Iran is in dire need of a modern heavy multi-role/air-superiority fighter that fills in a certain niche.

TheImmortal · Feb 27, 2022

Blue In Green said:
And once again the Bayraktar TB2 is still in the sky over Ukraine..... Wow. I assume the bulk of these system were moved prior to the initial strike wave since Ukrainian armed forces are being fed up-to-date intel from EU and US intelligence (which is better than Russias).

Of course remember in 1980 how US/British fed Iraq latest satellite imagery of Iranian positions and gave Precursors of chemical weapon ingredients to Iraq?

They are funneling tons of arms into Ukraine thru the West.

Just goes to show you how impressive Israeli Intelligence aparatus is. They are constantly hitting Iranian weapons shipments in Syria. Russia is severely behind in the air power and real time intelligence gathering capability. It’s allowing Ukraine to inflict casualties.

This current war reminds me of Israel-HZ 06 war. Israel was getting so embarrassed that they started demolishing cities (classic Israeli doctrine) because they didn’t have an answer for HZ style warfare and underestimated their opponent.

rmi5 · Feb 27, 2022

Xerxes22 said:
Have to say, staying off PDF nd spending time on twitter these couple days to keep an eye on the war has been the worst thing I ever done.

The level of lies and the dangerous levels of use of copium on twitter by NATO European cheerleaders has disgusted me like nothing I've ever seen before. I don't think any war in human history there has been so much lies and misinformation spread by one party about the real situation on the ground. No pictures, no evidence, only superficial claims.

They think it's normal for an army to achieve total victory within 24 hrs. After the progress Russia made after day 1 they Went on thumping their chest how Russia was defeated, they have no will or morale or whatever shit that they were saying.

OMG, goddamned Nazis, you are getting enveloped on all sides and Russians only used what? Around 65k TROOPS?

These uneducated NATO cheerleaders were nowhere to be found, they were busy taking drugs when the Nazis attacked innocent Russian speaking civilians, when they were relentlessly bombing donbass. Oh wait, the people of east Ukraine are not WESTERN ENUF, just like the Syrians.

These morons needs to be taught a lesson... I have no pity for Ukrainians. In fact I hope Ukraine ceases to exist and Russia just annexes the whole of Ukraine..

After all, if somebody creates an account in a military forum like this one, posts here, it means that they are already military enthusiasts, somewhat educated about about military and geopolitics in the first place, yet, you mostly see dumb, laughable comments. Then, you look into Twitter, officially the place for dumb rich pseudo-intellectual suburbanite kids in the world, you'll see the IQ's drop by 2 standard of deviations, egos going up by 10 standard of deviations.

Blue In Green said:
How in the holy-hell did the Russians not manage to destroy the Ukrainian air-force? They're suffering totally unnecessary losses due to their inept military planning. Wtf....

And once again the Bayraktar TB2 is still in the sky over Ukraine..... Wow. I assume the bulk of these system were moved prior to the initial strike wave since Ukrainian armed forces are being fed up-to-date intel from EU and US intelligence (which is better than Russias). Begs the questions of just how many more air-assets have and are continuing to survive in Ukraine.

Yes, apparently, they were moved to Poland, now coming back to Ukraine. The same strategy that Saddam had in the first Persian Golf war, but Iran didn't return their jets.

rmi5 · Feb 27, 2022

QWECXZ said:
And we have people here like @SalarHaqq who think +5,000 (let's say 20,000) missiles will be enough to cripple not only all US bases in the neighboring countries to as far as Diego Garcia, but they think we can also cripple our neighbor's infrastructures as well and force them to end the war.

And when I show them calculations, to which they do not object, that we'll need at least 2,000,000 missiles to do what a decent air force can do in a prolonged war, they say we won't need that much destructive power because the war will end soon. This kind of thinking is very dangerous for Iran's national security.

Missiles are not meant to win the war, by destroying the enemy's army.
On ground targets, they are designed to cause damage to cities, putting public pressure on your enemy to withdraw. Missiles, especially without satellite guidance, lack accuracy, that's why they are meant to carry unconventional warheads (Cluster/nuclear/...), which will destroy the target, even if you miss it by a 1km! Also, unconventional warheads nullify the need for so many missiles.
On sea targets, missile are very effective against large ships/carriers, as they are all relatively slow moving& large targets.
In the air, they are quite useless as they lack enough maneuverability against jets or speed against BM's, that's why you cannot only rely on your air defense missiles for your air defense, rather you need capable jets. I don't know any air defense system in the world, with a very successful track record. Be it short/medium/long range, or Russian Tor,S300's,.../American patriots,.../Israeli Iron Dome.
In summary, you need jets at least for 1. the air superiority role (like F-22's, so on), as well as 2. conventional CAS (like A-10/Su-25), as well as 3. plenty of helicopters,( for the support against tanks, ... especially in mountains, moving your troops, ...), as well as 4. more jets for precision strikes against conventional targets without causing public hysteria. Each is designed for it's own purpose, after countries learnt hard lessons for lacking such capabilities. It's good to have an innovative mind, but it doesn't make sense to re-invent the entire wheel of military history/strategy/equipments technology.
Peace