Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Mithridates]

Frank answers from Uzi Rubin here.

His take on missile vs. airpower is basically what I preached for years and got much opposition for it.
Many of his Israeli and western friends made fun of Irans BM approach but this phase is over as he openly speaks about admiring Irans defense approach.

Important points:
- Deterrence without nuclear warheads via precision strike BMs in massive numbers
- Iran's cost efficient warfare --> don't use own airforce in Syria but get Russians in
- Iran's avoidance to get into the airpower game (IRIAF - Su-30 trap) --> "conventional airpower is something from WWII"
- ABM systems have great problems with hypersonic weapons (of which at least the Zolfaghar/Dezful BM is an early (high supersonic" representative).
- Smart and admirable minds behind Irans defense decision making.

Thanks to baradarane militaryIR for finding it.

The truth is, Iran's leader Khamenei was basically behind it and the motivation was "the impossibel": Enable military confrontation with the remaining superpower of the planet. Every step the decision makers made formed the basis on what Iran can do today. Every avoidance of a wrong path or investment was vital to get here where Iran is today. Viewing Irans threat potential of post-war 1988 and today shows the incredible distance left behind.
I guess like Rubin I found it impossible for Iran to reach this capability against the U.S back until the mid-2000's.

but for wining a war you need air power. that's true we can send any nation to stone age if a war broke out, but without AF you can't provide air support to your ground units resulting in their lower hand against enemy resulting with an army that only can defend. Syria clearly showed that. also missiles have no anti radiation capability so as against moving targets. an old phantom with three fuel tanks, two qased-3+4 sidewinders/pl-7s+6 yasin GPS guided glide bomb (or good old AGM-65s) can travel almost 500 km~zolfagar range (considering qased range). while you can hit 1 place with zolfagar, in the phantom case you can hit 8 ground and 4 aerial targets. you can hit enemy radars with su-24 and su-30, missiles can't do that. you can't achieve this much of flexibility by BMs unless you have satellites.

 

[yavar]

 

[OldTwilight]

Traitors ...

Reformers are like young white whom enjoy being fucked and gangbanged while claiming they are virgin ....

 

[PeeD]

but for wining a war you need air power. that's true we can send any nation to stone age if a war broke out, but without AF you can't provide air support to your ground units resulting in their lower hand against enemy resulting with an army that only can defend. Syria clearly showed that. also missiles have no anti radiation capability so as against moving targets. an old phantom with three fuel tanks, two qased-3+4 sidewinders/pl-7s+6 yasin GPS guided glide bomb (or good old AGM-65s) can travel almost 500 km~zolfagar range (considering qased range). while you can hit 1 place with zolfagar, in the phantom case you can hit 8 ground and 4 aerial targets. you can hit enemy radars with su-24 and su-30, missiles can't do that. you can't achieve this much of flexibility by BMs unless you have satellites.

Just a few days ago Iran demonstrated UAV laser designation and laser guided artillery shells for them. Plus the potential of UCAVs + quadcopters. For anti radiation missions Iran has suicide drones and Hormuz series of missiles.

I already discussed the issue a year or so ago here. There is no intimidate need for fighter-bomber based airpower.
The elegance and smartness is to realize this before you get yourself a expensive fleet.

Syria would have probably got better results if Irans UCAV fleet of efficient S-123/-191 would be sufficiently strong and employed back then.

Your Phantom example is good, however that mission can be performed by a MALE turbo-prop heavy payload UCAV. After the high intensity phase of the warfare and a degraded opponent, such a MALE UCAV will be survivable enough while costing 1/10 the F-4 mission costs.

As for reconnaissance satellites are of course good, but Iran is also working on SAR based long range reconnaissance by stealthy UAV systems.

As said, this all was already discussed here.

Airpower was and is an economical trap for Iran right now. I could think about a ~2025 replacement of F-4, F-14, Mig-29 and Su-24 by 150, high speed, long range manned interceptor/bombers. Mainly for tactical flexibility via interception and cruise missile delivery. The rest should be unmanned and unconventional.

 

[Mithridates]

Just a few days ago Iran demonstrated UAV laser designation and laser guided artillery shells for them. Plus the potential of UCAVs + quadcopters. For anti radiation missions Iran has suicide drones and Hormuz series of missiles.

I already discussed the issue a year or so ago here. There is no intimidate need for fighter-bomber based airpower.
The elegance and smartness is to realize this before you get yourself a expensive fleet.

Syria would have probably got better results if Irans UCAV fleet of efficient S-123/-191 would be sufficiently strong and employed back then.

Your Phantom example is good, however that mission can be performed by a MALE turbo-prop heavy payload UCAV. After the high intensity phase of the warfare and a degraded opponent, such a MALE UCAV will be survivable enough while costing 1/10 the F-4 mission costs.

As for reconnaissance satellites are of course good, but Iran is also working on SAR based long range reconnaissance by stealthy UAV systems.

As said, this all was already discussed here.

Airpower was and is an economical trap for Iran right now. I could think about a ~2025 replacement of F-4, F-14, Mig-29 and Su-24 by 150, high speed, long range manned interceptor/bombers. Mainly for tactical flexibility via interception and cruise missile delivery. The rest should be unmanned and unconventional.

i understand the smarty way of projecting power that Iran pursues but to replace AF completely we need our own satellites, artificial intelligence and that quantum communication. with these we maybe do not need a big air fleet.

 

[Ich]

i understand the smarty way of projecting power that Iran pursues but to replace AF completely we need our own satellites, artificial intelligence and that quantum communication. with these we maybe do not need a big air fleet.

For guidance of Fighter-UAVs you do not need explicit satellites. Due to the geography of the greater east, and here the regions in the west and northwest and southwest of Iran and Iran itself, you can make long range land based positioning systems which will reach from Iran to Egypt/Italy/Israel/Cyprus/Somalia/Yemen and Diego Garcia.

 

[Arminkh]

Frank answers from Uzi Rubin here.

His take on missile vs. airpower is basically what I preached for years and got much opposition for it.
Many of his Israeli and western friends made fun of Irans BM approach but this phase is over as he openly speaks about admiring Irans defense approach.

Important points:
- Deterrence without nuclear warheads via precision strike BMs in massive numbers
- Iran's cost efficient warfare --> don't use own airforce in Syria but get Russians in
- Iran's avoidance to get into the airpower game (IRIAF - Su-30 trap) --> "conventional airpower is something from WWII"
- ABM systems have great problems with hypersonic weapons (of which at least the Zolfaghar/Dezful BM is an early (high supersonic" representative).
- Smart and admirable minds behind Irans defense decision making.

Thanks to baradarane militaryIR for finding it.

The truth is, Iran's leader Khamenei was basically behind it and the motivation was "the impossibel": Enable military confrontation with the remaining superpower of the planet. Every step the decision makers made formed the basis on what Iran can do today. Every avoidance of a wrong path or investment was vital to get here where Iran is today. Viewing Irans threat potential of post-war 1988 and today shows the incredible distance left behind.
I guess like Rubin I found it impossible for Iran to reach this capability against the U.S back until the mid-2000's.

"…. Look at how Iran took out Kurdish full command structure from inside an airconditioned room by pressing a button and what west would do in similar circumstances: Use large expensive airports, launch number of F-16s, put pilots' life in danger and drop precision bombs! Look at this and tell me who is advanced and how is behind?!"

Love it! lol

 

[Hack-Hook]

"…. Look at how Iran took out Kurdish full command structure from inside an airconditioned room by pressing a button and what west would do in similar circumstances: Use large expensive airports, launch number of F-16s, put pilots' life in danger and drop precision bombs! Look at this and tell me who is advanced and how is behind?!"

Love it! lol

but we didn't fire the missiles from Airconditioned room . we drove tells at night positioned them and fired the missiles from there

 

[skyshadow]

Exclusive: The Iranian Man Behind Hezbollah's Missile Program

 

[Arminkh]

but we didn't fire the missiles from Airconditioned room . we drove tells at night positioned them and fired the missiles from there

I'm sure the tells were not that far away from that airconditioned room.

 

[TheImmortal]

Just a few days ago Iran demonstrated UAV laser designation and laser guided artillery shells for them. Plus the potential of UCAVs + quadcopters. For anti radiation missions Iran has suicide drones and Hormuz series of missiles.

I already discussed the issue a year or so ago here. There is no intimidate need for fighter-bomber based airpower.
The elegance and smartness is to realize this before you get yourself a expensive fleet.

Syria would have probably got better results if Irans UCAV fleet of efficient S-123/-191 would be sufficiently strong and employed back then.

Your Phantom example is good, however that mission can be performed by a MALE turbo-prop heavy payload UCAV. After the high intensity phase of the warfare and a degraded opponent, such a MALE UCAV will be survivable enough while costing 1/10 the F-4 mission costs.

As for reconnaissance satellites are of course good, but Iran is also working on SAR based long range reconnaissance by stealthy UAV systems.

As said, this all was already discussed here.

Airpower was and is an economical trap for Iran right now. I could think about a ~2025 replacement of F-4, F-14, Mig-29 and Su-24 by 150, high speed, long range manned interceptor/bombers. Mainly for tactical flexibility via interception and cruise missile delivery. The rest should be unmanned and unconventional.

The Syrian war alone dropped more KG’s of explosives than Iran’s entire arsenal of missiles. A Single Russian TU-22M3 Doing a SINGLE bombing run dropped 23,000 KG of explosives or the equivalent of 22-25 long range Iranian Missiles.

To think your suggestion of turbo prop UAVs could turn the tide of the war when not only do you need massive payloads but quick and timely delivery....is borderline fantasy.

Maybe against a banana country like Qatar or Egypt such a strategy could work. But against even a somewhat formidable opponent like Turkey it would be failure. Let alone major world powers.

People forget how fast Iran’s Missile arsenal would be exhausted in a major war not even accounting for interception, failure to hit target with reasonable CEP, and mechanical issues.

To rely ONLY on missiles is to make yourself 2D.

If Iran can’t take 10,000 cruise missiles and still retaliate then you sure as hell better believe your opponent can take 10,000 BMs and still retaliate. Iran is not an exception to the rule.

"…. Look at how Iran took out Kurdish full command structure from inside an airconditioned room by pressing a button and what west would do in similar circumstances: Use large expensive airports, launch number of F-16s, put pilots' life in danger and drop precision bombs! Look at this and tell me who is advanced and how is behind?!"

Love it! lol

Uri over-exaggerates Iran’s threat in order to advance Zionist agenda which is get US to force Iran to rein in missile program.

Now trump says iran ready to negotiate on missile program because of Zarif’s comments.

So Uri completed his job by making Iran’s missiles sound like some super weapon.

 

[PeeD]

The Syrian war alone dropped more KG’s of explosives than Iran’s entire arsenal of missiles. A Single Russian TU-22M3 Doing a SINGLE bombing run dropped 23,000 KG of explosives or the equivalent of 22-25 long range Iranian Missiles.

That is no argument. Tu-22M3 drops dumb bombs while Irans missile are or will be PGM like.
It becomes an argument if you talk about SVP-24 equipped Su-24 that enable suffciently accurate bombing with dumb bombs. However even the the problem is: Just use more cost efficient platforms such as the F-5 or a truck launched turboprop UAV.

To think your suggestion of turbo prop UAVs could turn the tide of the war when not only do you need massive payloads but quick and timely delivery....is borderline fantasy.

You got Zolfaghar like missiles for time critical targets.
Subsonic speed delivery by a fighter-bomber is not exactly for time critical targets and neither CMs.
That turboprop UAV is there to deliver 250-1000kg dumb bombs with a SVP-24 like ballistic calculation system. To neutralize large structures (or create shock effect) at maximum cost efficiency. Or Iranian JDAM if higher accuracy is required.
The real air support would be by S-123 high endurance UCAV with Sadid series of PGMs.

Maybe against a banana country like Qatar or Egypt such a strategy could work. But against even a somewhat formidable opponent like Turkey it would be failure. Let alone major world powers.

The idea behind this is to degrade the opponent to a "banana" like country with missiles and then use UAV based airpower to clean up the rest. Btw. Egypt and Turkey are at about the same warfighting capacity.

People forget how fast Iran’s Missile arsenal would be exhausted in a major war not even accounting for interception, failure to hit target with reasonable CEP, and mechanical issues.

You need to check how many critical targets various possible opponents of Iran have. You use missile where it is worth it. Irans numbers are immense and the previously terminally unguided arsenal of Shahab and Ghadr series is currently upgraded to precision strike capable BMs.

To rely ONLY on missiles is to make yourself 2D.

That's true to some extend and that's why Iran has kept the IRIAF. Whats important is that 80% of the offensive strike capability come from the missile forces. The IRIAF adds a dimension mainly in form of forcing enemy airpower to defend against it by carrying AAMs, keeping an airbattle fuel reserve etc.
Same thing with CMs, they mainly force the opponent to invest in a additional defense layer against them. The CM situation may have changed by the Houthi-presented "Ya-Ali-2": This design may be sufficiently cost effective to compete with Irans BMs in some scenarios.

If Iran can’t take 10,000 cruise missiles and still retaliate then you sure as hell better believe your opponent can take 10,000 BMs and still retaliate. Iran is not an exception to the rule.

Try to analyse more accurately. Irans war-machinery is designed to be survivable, either disguised, hardened, low footprint or expandable. Alone getting rid of airbases is a huge plus for survivability.
Hence the enemy can spend 10.000 CMs on Iran and it will maintain its key capabilities, especially for retaliation.
That's the elegance of Irans approach.

But on the other hand the enemy will suffer badly by high supersonic penetrating BMs especially due to its airbase based airpower. Uzi Rubin is just frank there.

So Iran is a exception of the rule do it its right decisions. Its just hard to believe how elegantly Iran achieves this.

Uri over-exaggerates Iran’s threat in order to advance Zionist agenda which is get US to force Iran to rein in missile program.

He is concerned and want Israel to copy some of Irans concepts.

 

[Arminkh]

The Syrian war alone dropped more KG’s of explosives than Iran’s entire arsenal of missiles. A Single Russian TU-22M3 Doing a SINGLE bombing run dropped 23,000 KG of explosives or the equivalent of 22-25 long range Iranian Missiles.

To think your suggestion of turbo prop UAVs could turn the tide of the war when not only do you need massive payloads but quick and timely delivery....is borderline fantasy.

Maybe against a banana country like Qatar or Egypt such a strategy could work. But against even a somewhat formidable opponent like Turkey it would be failure. Let alone major world powers.

People forget how fast Iran’s Missile arsenal would be exhausted in a major war not even accounting for interception, failure to hit target with reasonable CEP, and mechanical issues.

To rely ONLY on missiles is to make yourself 2D.

If Iran can’t take 10,000 cruise missiles and still retaliate then you sure as hell better believe your opponent can take 10,000 BMs and still retaliate. Iran is not an exception to the rule.



Uri over-exaggerates Iran’s threat in order to advance Zionist agenda which is get US to force Iran to rein in missile program.

Now trump says iran ready to negotiate on missile program because of Zarif’s comments.

So Uri completed his job by making Iran’s missiles sound like some super weapon.

On the contrary, Iran's missiles were always Trump agenda and one of their original 12 conditions for negotiations.

I think Trump knows that sooner or later he needs to get back to the deal and negotiations so what Pompeo and Trump said about Iran willingness to negotiate about its missiles is for internal consumption.

Internal pressure is building up against Trump. Dem Barbara Lee has introduced a resolution for US reentry to the nuclear deal. It probably won't pass but shows you what is going on. Trump is losing this fight with Iran:

https://price.house.gov/newsroom/pr...s-tensions-iran-reps-lee-price-and-schakowsky

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Since Israeli warplanes are violating the Lebanese airspace on daily basis without the consent of the Lebanese government, not sure why would they make noises about an Iranian engineer who is helping the Lebanese resistance? Perhaps they don't want any group in the Middle East that can challenge their dominance.

Exclusive: The Iranian Man Behind Hezbollah's Missile Program

 

[Arminkh]

Since Israeli warplanes are violating the Lebanese airspace on daily basis without the consent of the Lebanese government, not sure why would they make noises about an Iranian engineer who is helping the Lebanese resistance? Perhaps they don't want any group in the Middle East that can challenge their dominance.

Of course they don't.