Blue In Green
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,359
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Good post, and I do agree with your analysis. Perhaps with the incremental exception of a few details, which do not affect your conclusions. Now I haven't read subsequent posts in detail yet, including EvilWestener's comprehensive reply, so some of what I will now write might turn out to be redundant - forgive me if this is the case.
About the missile farms: I'm asking myself why should Iran configure its buried container-based BM launchers in large clusters to start with? If a minimum distance of 500 meters or more is kept between each buried container, and if there are many thousands of these (plus ten times that amount of decoys), then even nuclear devices will not be of any help to the aggressor. Also I don't know to what extent nuclear weapons other than dedicated nuclear-tipped bunker busters cause damage underground.
As for which stage of a hypothetical conflict I was contemplating, essentially the opening stage, yes. My reflection is mostly centered on what's needed for Iran to effectively deter any and all realistic possibility of a major aggression by her enemies.
(Much) greater distance to fly = more fuel needed thus potentially decreased weapons payload, smaller sortie rates, increased financial mission costs etc. They cannot easily replicate the same type of a massive operation out of Diego Garcia and/or aircraft carriers stationed afar.
This is where I would - respectfully - differ most, if I may.
Like I wrote in the Chill Thread, it wouldn't be surprising nor a stretch by any means if Iran possessed 20.000, 50.000 or even 80.000 operational ballistic missiles.
Why? Because afterall, these are being produced since around 1987, that is nearly 34 years now... And ever since, Iran's official yearly defence budget has revolved at around 10 to 15 billion USD. I don't know what percentage of this has gone to procurement of new weaponry, but in EU countries, the figure in 2019 stood at some 23%, while it reached no less than 29% in the USA. India dedicated nearly 28% of its 2020 defence budget to fresh additions.
So even if we suppose Iran channeled only 10% of its military spending towards producing or purchasing additional arms, that's more than a billion USD on average per year since 1987. We know how little Iran bought from foreign suppliers. And we know that the bulk of Iran's defence investments first and foremost went into ballistic missiles, followed by air defence and UAV's (both R&D, setting up of mass-production facilities and bases, and manufacturing of missiles).
At no more than some 200.000 USD - let's take a more conservative estimate and assume it's 300.000 USD per missile, even a mere 300 million USD spent each year on these weapons, would have given Iran one thousand missiles per year. Multiply this by 34 and you're beginning to get the picture (we arrive at a total of 34.000 ballistic missiles already!)...
Notice that this is without counting in other sources of revenue that the IRGC might have partly used to fund missile production, such as possible profits stemming from its economic activities.
So once again, we must logically conclude that Iran's BM arsenal is so massive that there are strictly no worries to have as to Iran's overwhelming deterrence power against a major attack, including against an impressive force such as the US plus its entire host of both western and regional allies.
The "estimates" of Iranian BM numbers announced by US authorities in public represent nothing more than propaganda and psy-ops, aimed not only at Iranian audiences but also and mostly at their own, including their armed forces personnel, who, should they learn the real extent of Iran's deadly missile arsenal, would see their morale take a serious hit in any contingency scenario in which a large scale war against Iran should actually break out.
Hundreds of missile bases I don't know, but tens there definitely are.
As for (tens of) thousands of TEL's along with a reliable fueling system, it sounds completely feasible to me. Wouldn't you say?
About the missile farms: I'm asking myself why should Iran configure its buried container-based BM launchers in large clusters to start with? If a minimum distance of 500 meters or more is kept between each buried container, and if there are many thousands of these (plus ten times that amount of decoys), then even nuclear devices will not be of any help to the aggressor. Also I don't know to what extent nuclear weapons other than dedicated nuclear-tipped bunker busters cause damage underground.
I'm not personally convinced that Iran will have or will be employing 1,000s of these static underground container launched BMs per missile-farm, maybe 1,000s overall (total launcher count between all farms) but each missile farm will probably consist of 100s (idk about this as well) in number and that would be a mix of decoys, real missiles and spread out just as you said. The importance of striking such suspected sights, even with low efficacy, is quite crucial since these static underground launchers are meant to be launched in a tactical manner against time crucial targets (?) in real time, essentially whilst the shooting is going on actively. Where as the larger missile bases that fire off Ghadrs, Shahabs, Khoramshahrs, Seijils, EMAD etc, are more for strategic objectives. In this regard the Americans would have bite the bullet and lob what they would deem to be the necessary amount of low-yield nukes to pacify this threat as it can and will destroy their immediate ability to retaliate. Basically I'm assuming the missiles farms purpose is to attack nearby air-fields, stations and other adjunct facilities the opponent uses to support their minute-by-minute operations. Such
As for which stage of a hypothetical conflict I was contemplating, essentially the opening stage, yes. My reflection is mostly centered on what's needed for Iran to effectively deter any and all realistic possibility of a major aggression by her enemies.
As it stands currently, Iran has effectively deterred any aggressor from launching sweeping air-strikes against Iranian soil. So, I don't think we need to worry about Iran being subjected to a military campaign of any sort for now although things can change and times are changing.
Israel is becoming alarmingly frantic and is finding itself more and more boxed in without much breathing room. Both Iran's nuclear, missile and regional footprint presents an existential threat to them and it must be pacified (no matter what). Regardless of what we say or do, the larger war between Iran and Israel proper is going to start sooner rather than later.
(Much) greater distance to fly = more fuel needed thus potentially decreased weapons payload, smaller sortie rates, increased financial mission costs etc. They cannot easily replicate the same type of a massive operation out of Diego Garcia and/or aircraft carriers stationed afar.
Agreed, once America (and Co.) regional war conducting capacity is hindered they will have to rely on assets stationed thousands of miles (or just further) away to conduct operations that severely reduces their sortie rate and ability to get at time-crucial targets. If Iran can manage to destroy the larger regional military bases, then their TEL fleet should be able to move-scoot-fire and get away without much worry of reprisal since the air-bases that would normally be flying F15s, F16s, F22s etc... would be defunct and the assets coming in from far away wouldn't reach them in time before they moved. At-least I think this is the case, please feel free to add or correct me.
Still, Diego Garcia can accommodate America's most powerful air-borne platforms. The B52, B2 B-1 lancers and these can carry massive amounts of stand-off munitions that can fire at Iran from range. It's still a massive threat to Iranian military operations no matter how one cuts it.
This is where I would - respectfully - differ most, if I may.
Like I wrote in the Chill Thread, it wouldn't be surprising nor a stretch by any means if Iran possessed 20.000, 50.000 or even 80.000 operational ballistic missiles.
I don't really have much of an argument against this position believe it not, if this is indeed the case then I'm all for it lol. I know we'll never find out how many Iran has, so I think we just have to confide in our assumptions about the total count thus far.
The "estimates" of Iranian BM numbers announced by US authorities in public represent nothing more than propaganda and psy-ops, aimed not only at Iranian audiences but also and mostly at their own, including their armed forces personnel, who, should they learn the real extent of Iran's deadly missile arsenal, would see their morale take a serious hit in any contingency scenario in which a large scale war against Iran should actually break out.
The woeful efforts of the West to portray Iran as weak are simply dangerous in the worst way possible.... God forbid a war starts and Iran just start laying absolute waste to region. They'd be caught with their pants down with angry populace asking "WTF happened? I thought you said they were weak and only hand a handful of missiles?!".
Fully agreed Salar, this is something many must come to understand. Iran's military might is not to be taken as a joke whatsoever but nevertheless, they still act as if Iran can be conquered within the fortnight.
As for (tens of) thousands of TEL's along with a reliable fueling system, it sounds completely feasible to me. Wouldn't you say?
I would agree with this as well, although the exact number alludes me but it's definitely in the thousands (in total).
Thank you very much for the discussion! and thank you to everyone else as well!!
Much appreciated as always!!
Last edited: