Iran is more likely right now building 2 a WEEK. And you are saying 2 fully assembled missiles A DAY? Not happening, especially solid fuel.
Neither is Iran’s liquid/solid fuel engine daily production rate at 2 engines.
Yearly Iranian missile production might be 75-100 at best in current environment. Don’t see any indications of 10,000 a year production or even 5,000 or even 2,500.
And what are these figures based on? All I see is plain guesstimates but no justification.
Again 2000-2010 was early a Shahab-3 models production using less reliable guidance system less reliable alloys, and less reliable engine production.
These models can not only be upgraded with ready made kits and warheads, they will have their own role in a war.
Iran really has been producing missiles at a higher rate for maybe 8 years.
So the million dollar question is how many missiles can Iran build in 8 years? Like I said even 8,000 would be very optimistic
What are these statements founded upon other than guesswork and estimates from US authorities (in this case the Pentagon), which have a proven history of systematically and deliberately downplaying Iran's military industrial capabilities?
- - - - -
He won't get convinced. He understands that he's wrong, but he somehow feels obliged to continue his irrational arguments which go completely against logic.
I am yet to come across a convincing demonstration to the contrary.
He wants to compare missile production to automobile industry. Why wouldn't he compare it to the production of fighter jets? At least the industries are more similar. How many Kowsars have been produced after 4 years? The fourth one will be completed next year.
An analogy detached from fundamental variables. The production rate of Kowsars did not reach its full potential and never will because Kowsars and the air force in general are playing a subordinate role in Iran's essentially asymmetric defence doctrine. Whereas ballistic missiles, UAV's and the likes are treated as absolute priorities and have thus been attracting the bulk of funds allocated to domestic arms procurement. Hence why this is like apples and oranges.
Even 10,000 missiles would not protect Iran in a prolonged war. And by prolonged, I mean anything lasting more than a few months. And after our missile inventory runs out, we'll be left incredibly vulnerable to any offending force unless we purchase jet fighters from abroad. Even used jet fighters is a better option than leaving the IRIAF in this miserable situation.
More like ten thousand ballistic missiles (probably much more) launched from highly survivable platforms, thousands of cruise missiles, hundreds of UAV's with thousands of munitions, as well as the existing fleet of fighter jets, not to mention Iran's naval assets.
Indeed, this does and will protect Iran in any realistic conflict scenario, protracted or short lived, just as it has actually proven successful in deterring potential aggressors including the world's leading military power itself from initiating war against Iran. Incessant polemics on this site and elsewhere calling into question the defence strategy Iran worked out are nowhere new: we've been hearing them for ages. Only, there's not the remotest sign still of the gloomy picture they paint about Iran's security. And with every passing day, ground reality corroborates Iranian planners while refuting their critics.
The notion that Iran must engage in any sort of a symmetric arms race against the US in order to ensure her safety is delusory. The American war machine is geared towards rapidly defeating adversaries in a conventional and symmetric setting, and in this regard only countries as resourceful and sizeable as China or Russia can hope to achieve (near-)parity. For any other adversary, entertaining such assumptions would represent fatal reverie. An asymmetric doctrine then becomes the only rationally conceivable means of restoring a level playing field.
This observation furthermore is rooted in empirical reality. In all its recent wars, the US regime encountered no difficulties steamrolling opponents that choose to operate in a symmetric manner. Whilst asymmetrically fighting contenders were the only ones capable of offering strenuous opposition to the Americans. Iran understood this from the outset, thank God. Hence why she is still standing strong and progressing after forty-three years of anti-imperial Resistance.
As far as I'm concerned, the four or five local users who spend time seeking to portray Iranian decision makers as blind and incompetent can go on as much as they like. It's not going to change reality anyway, on either one of the following two decisive factors: Iran is not going to drop its asymmetric defence posture against the zio-American empire, nor will this compromise her security but in fact will only keep enhancing it.