TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
@VEVAK
Ok so you think a Hoveyzieh-like turbojet LACM would be cheaper then a Zolfaghar, Qiam or Dezful BM and thats why they should be used for that operation.
I'm not so sure about that.
If those BM's use GPS for point strikes, then CMs with much more robust TERCOM guidance would make sense. But if their pin-point level guidance is not dependent on GPS-like systems, you basically force the enemy to pay for countering systems at least at Patriot level.
Saudi Arabia can protect a oil facility with a single Crotale battery against a CM attack, but they need at least a Patriot even against unguided Zelzal-2. Hence the choice of BMs requires a costly to counter by the enemy.
Therefore the strategy to create mach-3+ targets (BMs) for the enemy may pay off an extra cost.
Certainly you are aware that Iran would first try to cripple their ABM systems by a BM DEAD campaign. Once it is degraded, a cost efficient UCAV would follow. So you use high performance high velocity weapons to degrade their defense and once it is below a certain level you start to use cost efficient weapons (even more efficient than IRIAF fighters...).
In the mix of high performance land attack weapons systems, CMs should make just 10% of the mix with 90% being BMs.
As for SCUDs: It is easier said than done to find and destroy them before launch. This requires huge sensor and strike capabilities. The entire allied force in 1991 was not able to do that effectively against Iraqi SCUDs.
Iran will try to get there with its UAV program, more so to counter Saudi Arabian BM threats. But a robust capability is still away.
The whole Bavar-373, its predecessors and its future variants were/are primary made to counter enemy BMs.
It's never easy and Patriots able to do that are extremely expensive and complex systems. That 1950's vintage system effectively overcame the quite new Patriot in 1991. This just tells us what kind of challenge that is.
Houthi Qiam variants already defeated 2000's updated PAC-3 Patriots, forcing them to launch 6-9 interceptors against that single Qiam (with each single interceptor being significantly more expansive than a Qiam...).
Hence even if you have a effective ABM system, you may soon loose on the economic, quantity side...
Bavar is a huge endeavor and a key technological system. Will it be sufficiency cost efficient to counter enemy BMs? Can sufficient numbers be acquired to protect key areas and counter potential numbers of enemy BMs?
A SCUD system is no F-16 with Storm shadow. You can't cripple the airbase and runway to stop its useage.
Iran would try to neutralize SCUD related targets in the first seconds and use its drones to detect and destroy them at later stage. But even 10 SCUDs launched against the Bandar Abbas oil refinery and not intercepted by B-373 would create a massive loss of money.
The Patriot can't effectively handle the DF-21 even right now. So B-373 to countering them effectively may give you a feeling of what huge technological task this represents.
The DF-21 and Jericho threat is a huge issue for Iran. The IRGC made huge efforts in the 2000's to protect Tehran against those threats. A friction of that effort was done to counter CMs, by creating just 4 automated ZSU-23-2 in front of important objects...
Imagine how difficult it is to create a ABM system which can launch 2 interceptors against a DF-21 for a 80%+ combined PK while still being significantly less expensive than that DF-21. These are the kind of goals such systems must achieve.
For those worried about SCUDs
“The longer answer is this: the Patriot system is a good missile defense system and has been proven in combat. Since the Saudi-Iranian proxy war in Yemen broke out in 2015, Saudi and UAE Patriot missile defenses have intercepted at least 52 incoming missiles through Nov. 14, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Patriot manufacturer Raytheon claims the actual number of intercepts is much higher: more than 100.“
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/12/did-saudis-shoot-down-houthi-missile/144451/
Amount of SCUDS in UAE possession:
“The UAE possesses a small number of Scud-B ballistic missiles, with a range of 300km and payload capacity of 1,000kg, which it purchased from North Korea in the late 1980s. [40] A declassified U.S. national intelligence estimate from 1991 asserted that North Korea sold the UAE 18-24 Scud-B missiles in 1988. [41] Others believe the UAE purchased 25 Scud-B missiles from North Korea in 1989. [42]”
https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-arab-emirates/
So I am sorry @PeeD, your fears are unjustified in the sense that UAE has likely less than 30 SCUDs and Saudi Arabia has somewhere between 400-700 DF-3s (SCUD like) and less than 100 DF-21.
I wouldn’t worry about their BM capability but rather their airforce as they can inflict ALOT more damage on oil refineries and fields with their 500+ fighters than their BMs.
Lastly, even Israel managed to intercept a Iranian rocket over Golan, so your pessisim against simple trajectory BMs with non manuervable and non decoy warheads is bit unwarranted.
In any case it’s tough to see how Iran manages to protect their oil fields. Hence why if SA or UAE dare to cross that line, they will suffer much more than Iran.
SA pumps 10+ million barrels a day. Even a 30-50% reduction will wreck havoc on world economics much more than Iran going from 3.5 million to 1 million. Most of Iran’s oil is domestic consumption given current oil sanctions.
Iran with cyberwarfare and BMs and sabatoge can significantly reduce SA oil production thus causing immense harm to the kingdom and the world.
Iran’s focus should be increasing the density of their air systems per area. The S-300 order was not sufficient given the size of Iran. Iran should also order S-500 to complement Bavar.
Iran’s Air defense systems need to be so dense in numbers that even if 30% of systems get taken out during first month(s) of war, it would still have one of the densiest Air defense envelopes in the world.