What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

Now heres a very strange one,the us deploys THAAD to israel even though [ON PAPER] israel has some of the claimed strongest abm capabilities in the me region.In addition even more strangely the us is purchasing iron dome for its own use,so why ship THAAD to israel?
Very curious,could this be because of the failures of the israelis davids sling system?.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/03/04/in-first-us-deploys-thaad-anti-missile-system-in-israel/

nope , they just want American to be there to drag them in any upcoming war ....
the system is not as valuable as American officers who operate them ....
 
.
nope , they just want American to be there to drag them in any upcoming war ....
the system is not as valuable as American officers who operate them ....
Do you think in next month netanyaboo would attack?
He is losing everything maybe war w/ Iran can save him.
 
.
Do you think in next month netanyaboo would attack?
He is losing everything maybe war w/ Iran can save him.

well , if I was them , I would attack Iran while some one like Rouhani and his comrades are in power of Iran government ....

روحانی می خواد توی سفر به عراق ، درباره ی قرارداد الجزایر صحبت کنه و احتمالا مثل هسته ای ، اروند رود رو هم به باد بده و بیاد ....
 
.
well , if I was them , I would attack Iran while some one like Rouhani and his comrades are in power of Iran government ....

روحانی می خواد توی سفر به عراق ، درباره ی قرارداد الجزایر صحبت کنه و احتمالا مثل هسته ای ، اروند رود رو هم به باد بده و بیاد ....
See this post of me
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/isra...-fraud-and-bribes.604798/page-2#post-11250046

I think in the same way
The war with Iran is last option for him to change everything, I expect him to make war and if he miss this opportunely I say he is too stupid to be prime minster of Israel.
They made six day war which was amazing in all area(They destroyed Arabs just in hours). Are they ready to do same thing w/ big surprise attack.
 
.
If the progress of the indictment leads to Netanyahu being taken to jail (I guess this would also greatly hinder the war-hawks of Israel from operating the way they've been doing from there on out) then it would be logical to surmise that he would launch a war with Iran given the CONSTANT war-rhetoric he preaches day in day out. His slip of tongue not too long ago about pursuing war with Iran was not some accident, it was an overt message to Iran that Israel is actively seeking a wider conflict. One in which Israel will get SA and US onboard to try and kinetically reduce Irans influence in the region. It is doomed to fail unless Iranians stage a revolution/coup of their own to dislodge the current power structure.

A war with Iran would have to include Hezbollah, certain elements in Syria and Iraq where Iran will be launching missiles from and Iran itself. Now there is no way Israel would take the fight to Iran all by its lonesome that's for certain but with Bolton and Pompeo whispering sweet nothings into Trumps ear, the possibility of the US military getting involved is damn near certain in one form or another.

Long story short, a hot conflict with Hezbollah and Iran would most certainly divert attention away from Netanyahu's severe crimes and give him the freedom needed to operate the way he's been operating up to now.
 
.
If the progress of the indictment leads to Netanyahu being taken to jail (I guess this would also greatly hinder the war-hawks of Israel from operating the way they've been doing from there on out) then it would be logical to surmise that he would launch a war with Iran given the CONSTANT war-rhetoric he preaches day in day out. His slip of tongue not too long ago about pursuing war with Iran was not some accident, it was an overt message to Iran that Israel is actively seeking a wider conflict. One in which Israel will get SA and US onboard to try and kinetically reduce Irans influence in the region. It is doomed to fail unless Iranians stage a revolution/coup of their own to dislodge the current power structure.

A war with Iran would have to include Hezbollah, certain elements in Syria and Iraq where Iran will be launching missiles from and Iran itself. Now there is no way Israel would take the fight to Iran all by its lonesome that's for certain but with Bolton and Pompeo whispering sweet nothings into Trumps ear, the possibility of the US military getting involved is damn near certain in one form or another.

Long story short, a hot conflict with Hezbollah and Iran would most certainly divert attention away from Netanyahu's severe crimes and give him the freedom needed to operate the way he's been operating up to now.
Nice analysis, your warnings remind me of Col. Wilkerson, he's the only one that gets the M.E. in my opinion, along with the late Zibigniew Brzezinski. That's what's missing in the U.S. govt, too many neophytes with short memories or worse no memories of history.
 
.
.
So how could a country at the level of Iran become a military world power?

Only way: ICBM

What sense does a expensive ICBM make without a nuclear warhead?

First it must be cheap and secondly it must have pin-point accuracy. Just a latent nuclear capability which Iran will have in a few years (and internationally legitimized), would be a bad justification.

IRGC's Shahroud team should have mastered their ICBM-class solid booster technology and the liquid Semnan team should also have completed their work on a ICBM-class engine.
In the precision field, there seems to be a breakthrough.

If Iran manages to create an affordable ICBM with conventional pin-point strike capability, it could call itself a worldpower even if all the rest of its capabilities are still at regional power level.
I firmly believe it is possible, since the throw weight of a HS-15 like ICBM with high accuracy, could bring the destruction-cost calculation into a economic zone.

Politically the Trump administration could be a ideal pretext to create such a capability without too much international opposition.

Btw. This is no wishful thinking: IMINT and intelligence reports all show that Iran is working on this since quite some time. The only point is: There has been no precission-strike ICBM created ever, not to talk about a affordable one.
 
.
So how could a country at the level of Iran become a military world power?

Only way: ICBM

What sense does a expensive ICBM make without a nuclear warhead?

First it must be cheap and secondly it must have pin-point accuracy. Just a latent nuclear capability which Iran will have in a few years (and internationally legitimized), would be a bad justification.

IRGC's Shahroud team should have mastered their ICBM-class solid booster technology and the liquid Semnan team should also have completed their work on a ICBM-class engine.
In the precision field, there seems to be a breakthrough.

If Iran manages to create an affordable ICBM with conventional pin-point strike capability, it could call itself a worldpower even if all the rest of its capabilities are still at regional power level.
I firmly believe it is possible, since the throw weight of a HS-15 like ICBM with high accuracy, could bring the destruction-cost calculation into a economic zone.

Politically the Trump administration could be a ideal pretext to create such a capability without too much international opposition.

Btw. This is no wishful thinking: IMINT and intelligence reports all show that Iran is working on this since quite some time. The only point is: There has been no precission-strike ICBM created ever, not to talk about a affordable one.

Showing such capacity would turn the Europeans against us. So we may never hear about such capacity until the day it is used.
 
.
If the progress of the indictment leads to Netanyahu being taken to jail (I guess this would also greatly hinder the war-hawks of Israel from operating the way they've been doing from there on out) then it would be logical to surmise that he would launch a war with Iran given the CONSTANT war-rhetoric he preaches day in day out. His slip of tongue not too long ago about pursuing war with Iran was not some accident, it was an overt message to Iran that Israel is actively seeking a wider conflict. One in which Israel will get SA and US onboard to try and kinetically reduce Irans influence in the region. It is doomed to fail unless Iranians stage a revolution/coup of their own to dislodge the current power structure.

A war with Iran would have to include Hezbollah, certain elements in Syria and Iraq where Iran will be launching missiles from and Iran itself. Now there is no way Israel would take the fight to Iran all by its lonesome that's for certain but with Bolton and Pompeo whispering sweet nothings into Trumps ear, the possibility of the US military getting involved is damn near certain in one form or another.

Long story short, a hot conflict with Hezbollah and Iran would most certainly divert attention away from Netanyahu's severe crimes and give him the freedom needed to operate the way he's been operating up to now.
Do you think Netan is the only voice to decide to declare such a war the whole Western hemisphere where avoiding for decades when Iran was much much weaker?

So how could a country at the level of Iran become a military world power?

Only way: ICBM

What sense does a expensive ICBM make without a nuclear warhead?

First it must be cheap and secondly it must have pin-point accuracy. Just a latent nuclear capability which Iran will have in a few years (and internationally legitimized), would be a bad justification.

IRGC's Shahroud team should have mastered their ICBM-class solid booster technology and the liquid Semnan team should also have completed their work on a ICBM-class engine.
In the precision field, there seems to be a breakthrough.

If Iran manages to create an affordable ICBM with conventional pin-point strike capability, it could call itself a worldpower even if all the rest of its capabilities are still at regional power level.
I firmly believe it is possible, since the throw weight of a HS-15 like ICBM with high accuracy, could bring the destruction-cost calculation into a economic zone.

Politically the Trump administration could be a ideal pretext to create such a capability without too much international opposition.

Btw. This is no wishful thinking: IMINT and intelligence reports all show that Iran is working on this since quite some time. The only point is: There has been no precission-strike ICBM created ever, not to talk about a affordable one.
Iran would never acquire ICBMs unless three things happen... First an indigenous sat nav system and second when there is no closer than 2000km targets available and when she can design small nuke warheads... Iran went smart when they limited their range to 2000, this will reduce the cost of more international pressure and second when the goal which is having a strong deterrence, could be achieved with 2000km why would Iran bother to go ahead... at least until there is a war on Iran.. What Iran is doing now is announcing that have the capability of ICBM which is true... This is enough assuring... Iran is a big country...but not that big in power and resources to engage the whole world!! YET! I think Iran will continue showing capabilities to built this and that..but keep that way until there is an excuse to go ahead with materializing it... remember %20 enriched U needs only one easy step more to become %95!
 
.
Iran needs to make best use of its conditions:

1: It is not a nuclear power and will only be a latent one in future (see Japan)
2: All other powers able to build a ICBM are nuclear powers (except Japan)
3: War drums from the Trump administration and cancellation of Barjam/JCPOA

A indefensible global strike capability is a central element to being a world military power.

If done in the right way, Iran could attend a status in which it would have such a capability in a legal way.
First: Irans BM arsenal is so large because it can use them in warfare.
As a non-nuclear power there is no risk of them being tipped with nuclear warheads that would require a nuclear counter attack.
Hence it is essential that Iran remains non-nuclear and at most a latent nuclear power if it wants to use its arsenal.
In practice, the capability this would offer in any kind of a limited conflict would be even higher than e.g the B-2 fleet of the USAF that is and was a important enabler for military intervention.
World powers have such assets such as submarine launched LACM and aircrafts carriers and none of those is as lethal (indefensible) as a conventional ICBM capability.
So we learn that such a capability would be in line with Sardar Salamis statement and what we see via IMINT and intelligence reports.
It must also be understood that such a capability could not be used if Iran would be a nuclear power, at least not without receiving a nuclear counter reaction by nuclear powers that feel threatened (no risk can be accepted in this case).

A global strike capability via a conventional ICBM would be a world first and cause worldwide opposition, but the Trump admin could provide a justification, more so because Iran is already de facto under a international embargo.
Once this capability is attained AND legitimized, it would be a unique capability worldwide. Upgraded with a hypersonic glide vehicle, it could stay the most effective weapon for Iran until the end of the century.
For the Europeans (and Russians and Chinese), Iran could agree to an INF-like limitation of IRBMs: Only MRBMs against regional threats and ICBMs against the U.S.

We have an idea on which the Shahround solid fuel team is working on: a 40-50ton ICBM (excluding a larger SLV). This could have a payload of 1.5 tons and more, depending on technology.
That would be three 500kg warheads.
If we now upscale the cost calculation and assume a Sejil costs $400k, one such ICBM could end up costing 1,5 mio USD. This translates to $500k for a 500kg high velocity payload delivered to intercontinental range.

If this is not feasible cost wise: Shahid Tehrani Moghaddams final project was for something even larger.
Something that would probably be able to deliver a payload of more than 3 tons.
Together with a Saman based PBV, this would result in at least 6 such 500kg warheads. Here the cost calculation could pay-off.
However such a heavy ICBM would be static, only for silos or mountain bases.
The enemy would be paralyzed by strikes it can't defend against and which it the highest value objects of the country with pin-point precision.
A limited defense would be certainly possible but the numbers Iran would throw, would make it a hopeless endeavor.
 
.
Let's make something very clear. The Iranian leadership would be the most incompetent leadership if they truly don't believe in having nukes given the number of nuclear threats we face. I understand why it's wise not to overtly declare ourselves nuclear, but I have little doubt that Iran already has some nukes and would make them in larger numbers if needed. They say we don't believe in mass killing weapons, which is moronic because you can use the power of nukes on MILITARY targets and not necessary on civilians. So I don't buy this notion we don't want nukes, it's just an act.

As for ICBM's, the only reason Iran caps it's missile range at 2000km (which is a lie as our missiles have longer range) is because of the EU nations. However as Gen Salami said recently, if the Europeans carry on being funny, Iran will remove this self placed limitation.
 
.
well , if I was them , I would attack Iran while some one like Rouhani and his comrades are in power of Iran government ....

روحانی می خواد توی سفر به عراق ، درباره ی قرارداد الجزایر صحبت کنه و احتمالا مثل هسته ای ، اروند رود رو هم به باد بده و بیاد ....
Sadly you`re right.The israelis have sometimes picked very good moments for their sneak attacks on other countries,and in many ways what better time to attack iran than right at the moment when the chumpist regime has managed to blackmail and intimidate much of the world into going along with its anti iran policies,not to mention that you`ve got a government in iran thats willing to virtually bend over backwards for the likes of european zionists like macron and merkel that it considers as "partners" in the worthless jcpoa,even tho they`ve done nothing whatsoever to live up to their obligations,quite the contrary in fact.
 
.
Iran needs to make best use of its conditions:

1: It is not a nuclear power and will only be a latent one in future (see Japan)
2: All other powers able to build a ICBM are nuclear powers (except Japan)
3: War drums from the Trump administration and cancellation of Barjam/JCPOA

A indefensible global strike capability is a central element to being a world military power.

If done in the right way, Iran could attend a status in which it would have such a capability in a legal way.
First: Irans BM arsenal is so large because it can use them in warfare.
As a non-nuclear power there is no risk of them being tipped with nuclear warheads that would require a nuclear counter attack.
Hence it is essential that Iran remains non-nuclear and at most a latent nuclear power if it wants to use its arsenal.
In practice, the capability this would offer in any kind of a limited conflict would be even higher than e.g the B-2 fleet of the USAF that is and was a important enabler for military intervention.
World powers have such assets such as submarine launched LACM and aircrafts carriers and none of those is as lethal (indefensible) as a conventional ICBM capability.
So we learn that such a capability would be in line with Sardar Salamis statement and what we see via IMINT and intelligence reports.
It must also be understood that such a capability could not be used if Iran would be a nuclear power, at least not without receiving a nuclear counter reaction by nuclear powers that feel threatened (no risk can be accepted in this case).

A global strike capability via a conventional ICBM would be a world first and cause worldwide opposition, but the Trump admin could provide a justification, more so because Iran is already de facto under a international embargo.
Once this capability is attained AND legitimized, it would be a unique capability worldwide. Upgraded with a hypersonic glide vehicle, it could stay the most effective weapon for Iran until the end of the century.
For the Europeans (and Russians and Chinese), Iran could agree to an INF-like limitation of IRBMs: Only MRBMs against regional threats and ICBMs against the U.S.

We have an idea on which the Shahround solid fuel team is working on: a 40-50ton ICBM (excluding a larger SLV). This could have a payload of 1.5 tons and more, depending on technology.
That would be three 500kg warheads.
If we now upscale the cost calculation and assume a Sejil costs $400k, one such ICBM could end up costing 1,5 mio USD. This translates to $500k for a 500kg high velocity payload delivered to intercontinental range.

If this is not feasible cost wise: Shahid Tehrani Moghaddams final project was for something even larger.
Something that would probably be able to deliver a payload of more than 3 tons.
Together with a Saman based PBV, this would result in at least 6 such 500kg warheads. Here the cost calculation could pay-off.
However such a heavy ICBM would be static, only for silos or mountain bases.
The enemy would be paralyzed by strikes it can't defend against and which it the highest value objects of the country with pin-point precision.
A limited defense would be certainly possible but the numbers Iran would throw, would make it a hopeless endeavor.

Yes would make sense if the Nuclear Powers who have those weapons today were logical actors that would only retaliate with Nukes if ever attacked with Nukes!

Now what if Iran is attack and Iran responds with conventional missiles and yet the retaliation to Iran's response is a nuclear attack? What then?

I'm not saying nukes are a necessity for Iran but worst case and at the very least we need to have the equipment ready at a safe location to build them in a very short timespan so if ever a single nuke drops on Iran we can retaliate in kind in under a week so it never happens again!

Also if the U.S. continues to equip the Saudi's with nuclear tech that will lead to a Saudi Nuke then we really don't have a choice because Iran simply can't afford to be a none nuclear state that's surrounded by nuclear powers from every side
I also think mutually assured destruction is a far more prudent and proven tactic!

The major nuclear powers of the world have air dropped nuclear bombs, cruise missiles armed with nukes, torpedo nukes, Air to Air nukes, nuclear artillery,..... & nuclear powered BM's so if ever U.S. fires cruise missiles at us or deploys bombers against us we wouldn't know if they have nukes on them or not until they hit so why should Iranian BM be any different?

And I believe the argument that no one would use a none nuclear ICBM were for the day's the accuracy to take out targets with high accuracy didn't exist and that argument will continue to fade as the tech to make the projectiles smaller and more accurate

If for example a $10 Million USD Iranian ICBM armed with decoys and 10 highly accurate MIRV with a CEP of 10 meters and ability to take out 10 fortified aircraft bunkers up to 10,000km away I'd say that's well worth the cost
same with a larger diameter $40 Million USD missile carrying 40 conventional MIRV even it it's for targets within 3,000km I would still say it would be well worth it without nukes as long as you have the accuracy to allow you to use larger number of lighter projectiles to take out bunkers and yes compared to a nuke the structural damage and death toll may not be so significant but for Iran the real prize is the military assets not the death toll or structural damage
 
.
We have an idea on which the Shahround solid fuel team is working on: a 40-50ton ICBM (excluding a larger SLV). This could have a payload of 1.5 tons and more, depending on technology.
That would be three 500kg warheads.
If we now upscale the cost calculation and assume a Sejil costs $400k, one such ICBM could end up costing 1,5 mio USD. This translates to $500k for a 500kg high velocity payload delivered to intercontinental range.

If this is not feasible cost wise: Shahid Tehrani Moghaddams final project was for something even larger.
Something that would probably be able to deliver a payload of more than 3 tons.
Together with a Saman based PBV, this would result in at least 6 such 500kg warheads. Here the cost calculation could pay-off.
However such a heavy ICBM would be static, only for silos or mountain bases.
The enemy would be paralyzed by strikes it can't defend against and which it the highest value objects of the country with pin-point precision.
A limited defense would be certainly possible but the numbers Iran would throw, would make it a hopeless endeavor.

There would be another option to static silo basing,which is extremely vulnerable to preemption unless backed up by a credible 2nd strike capability ie submarines or off road capable tels.
This is rail basing,both the soviet r23/ss24 scalpel and the us mx/peacekeeper solid fueled icbms were intended to use this option or variants of it,the mx would`ve used purpose built underground rail tracks with the ability of the launcher to break thru to the surface and fire at any point.
Both of these weighed around the 100 ton mark which made them very large solid fueled missiles in the heavy weight icbm class.
RT-23_ICBM_complex_in_Saint_Petersburg_museum.jpg

Ultimately tho,even if iran did develop and deploy a minimum capability nuclear force,iran would still need to have to develop and deploy a credible 2nd strike capability to back it up with.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom