Iranian Chill Thread

[Stryker1982]

Sejill-2 didn’t get revealed till 2008 and was a no show in many missile wargames for years. Reports of problems with the brand new missile design and newer more expensive materials was seen online.

Longer range F-110’s were not unveiled till Zolfghar in 2016.

As for where I get my production rate, it is my own personnel guess. Iran’s military rarely has leaks that are not intentional. So if you are waiting on Iran to be the one to tell you their production capabilities you might have to wait a long time.

Petramas seems to think it’s higher than 10,000 and again he uses last 12 years production due to Qiam.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1480190198143148042

I’m skeptical because he assumes 80 Qiam production lot at a high frequency. We don’t know if that Qiam production lots when delivered indicate quarterly, monthly, or semi annual production rate.

I went conservative, he went optimistic.

Also we don’t know how many missiles have been destroyed last 10 years trying to be transferred to HZ. How many missiles are used in war games and annual testing of stockpile. How many are discarded for X reason.

Maybe my estimate of 10,000 or lower was way too conservative. But I cant wrap my head around 100,000+ estimates.

Let’s say in conflict Iran fires 1,000 BMs (Russia fired 300 in 4 days) per month during war. With my estimate they would be depleted in 10 months. Another thing to ponder. Iran’s missile failure rate is 20-30% add in an interception rate. And for every 1,000 missiles Iran fires 500-600 reach their target.

So let’s say Iran has to first 2,000 per month. Any scenario where a war drags on more than a year will lead either complete exhaustion of Iranian missile supply (conservative estimate) or a high % (more liberal estimates of tens of thousands)

You'd imagine after first 1000 or 2000 missiles fire you should have evaporate all enemy capabilities, but this really depends on intelligence gather capability, which really needs to be improved in Iran.

 

[Blue In Green]

You'd imagine after first 1000 or 2000 missiles fire you should have evaporate all enemy capabilities, but this really depends on intelligence gather capability, which really needs to be improved in Iran.

No other way around it either.

Iran either knows exactly what it's intending to hit or that missile goes to absolute waste just pounding away at dirt, rock and sand.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Again, another fallacy. One component of power does not need to be "central" to affect the overall performance.

This represents a semantic slip now. Didn't you explicitly claim, and I quote, that the state of Iran's air force is placing Iran in a "very vulnerable position even regionally"? Which is not just akin to generically saying it affects overall performance, but very much equals attributing a decisive type of relevance to air power in the determination of Iran's overall security situation.

The statement that missiles cannot cover the role of an air force does not imply that the air force should play a central role in anyway.

Considering there are not all too many other options available to fulfill the roles of an air force, it ends up doing so.

"The status in future will not change" is a stupid thing to say which adds no value to the discussion.

More than catastrophist / alarmist predictions about Iran's security, by offering a more realistic take on the issue. One that time will prove to have been more rational, like it consistently has for the past decades. As said, none of the tirades posted here by critics of Iran's doctrine have anything innovative to them. In fact they're practically as old as the Islamic Revolution itself, and they keep getting proven wrong with the passage of time.

 

[QWECXZ]

This represents a semantic slip, a subterfuge. You explicitly claimed that the state of Iran's air force is placing Iran in a "very vulnerable position even regionally" (sic). Which is not just akin to saying it generically "affects overall performance", but it very much equals attributing a decisive relevance to air power in the determination of Iran's overall security situation.

If someone says that a person without feet is in a very vulnerable position, does that mean that feet are more important than the brain or the heart? They serve different purposes. You can't compare them. Dude, you are bad at semantics. Your selective interpretations and straw man fallacies are not going to win you this argument. You lost it a long time ago in fact.

Considering there are not all too many other options available to fulfill the roles of an air force, it pretty tends to do so.

Saying that Iran has no choice because nobody sells Iran jet fighters is one thing, trying to justify Iran's strategy as a genius discovery against everyone's reasoning and intuition, which honestly has been nothing but a temporary solution out of necessity due to sanctions, is a whole different matter. And trying to argue against the usefulness of an air force even if a window of opportunity for purchasing modern fighters might open due to recent events is a clear indication of irrational thinking or intentional trolling.

 

[Blue In Green]

This represents a semantic slip, a subterfuge. You explicitly claimed that the state of Iran's air force is placing Iran in a "very vulnerable position even regionally" (sic). Which is not just akin to saying it generically "affects overall performance", but it very much equals attributing a decisive relevance to air power in the determination of Iran's overall security situation.



Considering there are not all too many other options available to fulfill the roles of an air force, it pretty tends to do so.

Salar-jan, Iran's massive missile inventory would only be able to replace one function of a modern-fighter. And that's striking mainly fixed targets with access to only sub-optimal ISR.

Here are some of the shortcomings of a missile compared to a multi-role fighter that has proper support.

- Ballistic Missiles cannot actively search for targets in the theatre unless its anti-radiation or anti-ship (results will vary)
- No "man in the loop" to receive in the air updates to change targets based on battle-field priority
- Cannot intercept, anything. Fighters can
- Once used, it cannot be used again. Fighters can be re-armed and loaded with the same amount of ordinances they took off with
- Fighters can be loaded with a diverse array of weapons and mission specific kits, changing with the flow of battle as needed
- Fighters can defend large swathes of territory actively allowing for the rest of the military to function without fear of obliteration. This works well with IADS
- Fighters can be used to penetrate enemy AD and conduct surgical strikes, missiles can do this but their accuracy drops off significantly the further away from launch point the target is
- A fighter can carry a diverse set of weapons allowing it to be used to tackle a multitude of problems in real-time. Both AA and Air-to-ground
- A fighter (especially multi-role) fulfills many different roles
- The amount of firepower allowed by a fighter far outstrips that of a missile since they can carry many more of them at one time. A squadron of fully loaded F-15s (for example) can unleash massive amounts of both dummy and precision fire. Then fly back to base to reload and do it again and again.
- Fighters establish air-superiority and keep the skies clear of enemy airborne assets
- Fighters can provide CAS to frontline units
- Fighters (F-35) can act like an integrated combat-node for overall battlefield awareness. Feeding up-to-date information to command.
- Fighters with AWACS support can lay waste to a vast array of targets due to again, battlefield awareness
- Fighters can "look down" allowing for a way greater amount of enemy assets to be revealed
- Fighters with refueling tankers can conduct extensive raids on enemy fortifications (many such examples of this during the Iran-Iraq war where IRIAF decimated Iraqi military installations using these methods).
- Fighters have longevity to them, they can be upgraded over the course of decades.

Many of my points are repeated but they do warrant repeating. The list goes on and on really. But the main take away is that missiles, no matter how numerous or impressive in combat ability, they just simply will never replace the need for at-least a somewhat modern air-force. If not to strike and conduct extensive operations. Then at least for interception and general air-defense.

 

[SalarHaqq]

If someone says that a person without feet is in a very vulnerable position, does that mean that feet are more important than the brain or the heart?

That's not what my quoted statement entailed. However, given that you had previously engaged into extensive commenting about how you consider air power to be both more efficient and more cost-effective in the strike role compared to its alternative (ie ballistic missiles), we must conclude that yes.

Saying that Iran has no choice because nobody sells Iran jet fighters is one thing, trying to justify Iran's strategy which has been nothing but due to sanctions and out of necessity is a whole different matter.

This would amount to a false syllogism, I'm afraid. Iranian planners would have opted for the same strategy even in case of better access to fighter jets. There have been reports from sources much more credible than the likes of Taghvaee, that Iran turned down some large, affordable offers (for instance dozens of fighter jets from Turkmenistan if I'm not mistaken, in the 90's or early 00's). Another example are the Su-25 which Iran returned to Iraq.

Iran's motivations have been based on criteria such as cost-effectiveness, the nature of its main potential enemy (and the tremendous differential in terms of resources between the two), as well as on some inherent technical advantages characteristic of missiles, UAV's etc.

It's obvious that Iran has shown little enthusiasm in even attempting to convince potential suppliers of acquiescing to fighter jet deals.

And trying to argue against the usefulness of an air force even if a window of opportunity for purchasing modern fighters might open due to recent events is a clear indication of irrational thinking.

Not really. Cost-effectiveness and budgetary constraints are paramount. So are doctrinal requirements and specifications.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The list goes on and on really. But the main take away is that missiles, no matter how numerous or impressive in combat ability, they just simply will never replace the need for at-least a somewhat modern air-force. If not to strike and conduct extensive operations. Than at least for interception and general air-defense.

Sorry I won't have time to read your detailed explanations right now, but just to address the conclusion: I'm not sure if IRIAF for the past couple of decades would have qualified as a sufficiently modern air force to you, but assuming it wouldn't and considering the huge threat levels Iran faced from the US regime during this entire period, it would seem that Iran did in effect succeed in doing without the type of air power you have in mind. This would have to be the conclusion stemming from de facto empirical evidence. When it comes to the strike and interception roles, as stated earlier I do believe a limited acquisition of Russian heavy interceptors (three to four squadrons) to reduce hypothetical pressure on the ground based AD network around critical infrastructure would make sense, seeing how it wouldn't fall outside the framework of doctrinal parameters.

 

[TheImmortal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498020532104704001

You'd imagine after first 1000 or 2000 missiles fire you should have evaporate all enemy capabilities, but this really depends on intelligence gather capability, which really needs to be improved in Iran.

There’s a lot of targets. And Russia spent 350 missiles on one country and the country is still kicking.

Iran has to hit US navy ships, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Diego Garcia, maybe even Turkish airbases hosting US assets.

1000-2000 missiles is not enough for that. Not even close.

 

[Muhammed45]

Lukashenko has warned France and Germany that if they station nuclear weapons in the neighboring countries of Belarus, Belarus will again become a nuclear state. Even Lukashenko gets it.

Lukashenko cannot choose a non alignment approach bro.

We don't want to lose one over an other side. Even the peanut brain Reza Gholdor understood that Iran's interests lies in non alignment.

 

[Cthulhu]

It seems our simpletons want to appease these a$$holes, again.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498043006263377921

 

[Stryker1982]

Russia might soon be more Isolated than Iran.

Pretty crazy times if you ask me.

 

[sha ah]

Missiles vs Fighter jets ? Which one would be better ? I think it depends on the adversary. Against the US, missiles are the weapon of choice, since fighter jets would be more or less useless against a far superior airforce.

Against a regional adversary however, a mix of missiles and fighter jets would be the best option.

I'm not sure how many missiles Iran can launch at one time but with Iran's mobile launchers and launch sites from underground silos, 100 targets hit on a daily basis, especially at the start, would be preferable.

In the Ukraine war, the way I look at it, Russia has been taking it easy on Ukraine. Remember, anything the Russians destroy, they themselves will be responsible for rebuilding. They prefer not using excessive force.

In the first day they used 160 missiles. So far the Russians have surrounded every major city but have reframed from sending in their most elite units and they have tried to avoid civilian casualties. If this were an attack by the Americans or NATO, thousands of civilians would have been killed already and Ukraine would have been conquered without mercy, bombed into oblivion.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem as if this soft approach is going to work. Sooner or later, especially if these negotiations fail, Russia will have to start employing more ruthless and heavy handed tactics and really using the bulk of their forces to absolutely overwhelm and crush any resistance. It's sad but this is what it has come to.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498020532104704001

There’s a lot of targets. And Russia spent 350 missiles on one country and the country is still kicking.

Iran has to hit US navy ships, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Diego Garcia, maybe even Turkish airbases hosting US assets.

1000-2000 missiles is not enough for that. Not even close.

 

[sha ah]

The settlements of Shchastya and Stanytsia Luhanska have been occupied and almost destroyed, the situation is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe, - the head of the Luhansk Regional State Administration Serhiy Haidai.​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498003940067086338

Zelensky office confirms Russian troops have taken Berdyansk, home to naval base, on the Azov sea. Key point on the land bridge to Crimea​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498055522259451906

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497836460552171521

Although I'm skeptical I hope that these latest negotiations will work out. If not the Russians will increase the pressure and begin utilizing more ruthless and heavy handed tactics. Expect a massive outcry from the west. Honestly if this Kiev government cared about their people then they would have agreed to the terms in Minsk and a ceasefire during the last 7 years. Now they have dragged their nation into a war that they have no hope of winning. Likely if they don't agree to terms, they will end up being a government in exile in London.

I wonder if this can be verified and geolocated. If true this would be a last ditch effort by the Ukrainians since most of their airbases have either been destroyed or occupied and Russians have control of the air with their airforce and air defenses. Isn't the TOR capable of being active while mobile ? Perhaps the Russians were not expecting this ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498020532104704001

There’s a lot of targets. And Russia spent 350 missiles on one country and the country is still kicking.

Iran has to hit US navy ships, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Diego Garcia, maybe even Turkish airbases hosting US assets.

1000-2000 missiles is not enough for that. Not even close.

 

[sha ah]

Russian vehicles burnt in Kharkiv​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497994602619588620

On one hand this is good for Ukrainian morale, on the other hand, the situation is going to deteriorate as Ukrainians run low on food, fuel and ammunition. Mark my words if these negotiations fail you will see Russians using more ruthless means and civilian casualties will spike.

 

[sha ah]

So despite their best efforts, the Saudis have effectively lost control of Harad in the north of Yemen. It was something like a battle of attrition and both sides sustained heavy casualties but in the end, like Hodeidah, the Saudis have failed. The Houthis have also again launched a drone at Jizan. Allegedly this injured more than a dozen civilians. This despite 40+ airstrikes in the north recently.