Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

Iran builds a 6 launcher battlefield rocket disguised as a white civilian truck at a fraction of the cost, but HIMARS is some super weapon never seen before.

While you have to hide a HIMARS under bridges, vegetation, or other forms of concealment, constantly! You can literally part this truck in the side of a road or a parking lot in plain-view right in front of recon, and satellites and it will avoid targeting and destruction.

In terms of pure practicality, this Fath launcher is better. Most countries have 100,000s or millions of trucks in circulation, if a country wishes to targeted every truck in existence in a country, it simply can't wage war.
View attachment 871128

well I've heard Holy M142 HIMARS have rockets with the range of 150 and 300km . also i have heard only one of them can stop 7 nation army

 

[Oldman1]

Iran builds a 6 launcher battlefield rocket disguised as a white civilian truck at a fraction of the cost, but HIMARS is some super weapon never seen before.

While you have to hide a HIMARS under bridges, vegetation, or other forms of concealment, constantly! You can literally part this truck in the side of a road or a parking lot in plain-view right in front of recon, and satellites and it will avoid targeting and destruction.

In terms of pure practicality, this Fath launcher is better. Most countries have 100,000s or millions of trucks in circulation, if a country wishes to targeted every truck in existence in a country, it simply can't wage war.
View attachment 871128

Thats pretty clever. Something the Ukrainians can use. Considering the Russians already have a hard time finding the HIMARS, this could really help.

well I've heard Holy M142 HIMARS have rockets with the range of 150 and 300km . also i have heard only one of them can stop 7 nation army

150km to 500+km in near future.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Thats pretty clever. Something the Ukrainians can use. Considering the Russians already have a hard time finding the HIMARS, this could really help.


150km to 500+km in near future.

yes but the larger the range the less the number of missile it carry . if i'm not wrong it only carry 3 missile when it uses those 300km range missiles . wonder if it reduce to 2 if they use 500+km missiles

 

[Oldman1]

yes but the larger the range the less the number of missile it carry . if i'm not wrong it only carry 3 missile when it uses those 300km range missiles . wonder if it reduce to 2 if they use 500+km missiles

Actually the missiles are smaller than the ATACMS in terms of diameter. They can fit two in the HIMARS and 4 in M270s while with ATACMS it was 1 for HIMARS and 2 for M270s.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Actually the missiles are smaller than the ATACMS in terms of diameter. They can fit two in the HIMARS and 4 in M270s while with ATACMS it was 1 for HIMARS and 2 for M270s.

well guess that would be the natural way things supposed to be

 

[Oldman1]

well guess that would be the natural way things supposed to be

Indeed.

@Hack-Hook
They also planning to get the missiles that were originally 499km range (limited because of the INF Treaty) to close to 800km while still same body. So even though the PRSM is smaller than the ATACMS, can still fly further.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Indeed.

@Hack-Hook
They also planning to get the missiles that were originally 499km range (limited because of the INF Treaty) to close to 800km while still same body. So even though the PRSM is smaller than the ATACMS, can still fly further.

probably the wonder of new and lighter material in designing the body . just how the same size kheybar-shekan have 4 time the range of fateh-313 and its launcher can accommodate 2 of them instead of one

 

[Oldman1]

probably the wonder of new and lighter material in designing the body . just how the same size kheybar-shekan have 4 time the range of fateh-313 and its launcher can accommodate 2 of them instead of one

Its mostly the engine. Kind of like the JASSM missile which was around 300k range but now it up to 1000km range. In future they want to get it up to 2000km range while still same body. In my mind, I would like an extended fuselage version of those missiles that would increase the range more than what the limitations of the body. 13 feet long PRSM missile that can go only 800km when if you double it's length with more with fuel added, can get it up to 2000km or more. Same for the JASSM. But it was mean for launching on small aircraft like the F-16s. Who knows maybe we will see a 20 feet long version of the JASSM.

 

[Stryker1982]

Thats pretty clever. Something the Ukrainians can use. Considering the Russians already have a hard time finding the HIMARS, this could really help.

Their is a moralistic argument to make, with regards to disguising military as civilian, and risk getting civilians being targeted, but I think in terms of pure practicality, it would make for a better system (assuming same performance) for countries that are operating defensively, and who are dealing with a more advanced adversary. Naturally, I don't see an advantage for the US to convert their equipment with that disguise in mind, as it's pointless.

Indeed, Ukraine could use things like that, and we see Taiwan also employing these techniques with regards to their ground attack systems and air defence. Although, we haven't really seen much evidence Russia has been able to locate destroy these HIMARs launchers at all anyways lol.

 

[Stryker1982]

Its mostly the engine. Kind of like the JASSM missile which was around 300k range but now it up to 1000km range. In future they want to get it up to 2000km range while still same body. In my mind, I would like an extended fuselage version of those missiles that would increase the range more than what the limitations of the body. 13 feet long PRSM missile that can go only 800km when if you double it's length with more with fuel added, can get it up to 2000km or more. Same for the JASSM. But it was mean for launching on small aircraft like the F-16s. Who knows maybe we will see a 20 feet long version of the JASSM.

If they get models that go to 2000km, I wonder what the purpose of Tomohawks become, if not totally phased out? JASSM can do everything Tomahawk can do, but better, if not hindered by range.

 

[Joe_Adam]

If they get models that go to 2000km, I wonder what the purpose of Tomohawks become, if not totally phased out? JASSM can do everything Tomahawk can do, but better, if not hindered by range.

Day dreaming of sort . . . USA has a big mouth, too much talk about non existing useless Hi-Tech junk, and yet, they lose every war they start. Ironic . .

 

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1560577489906180096

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1560577489906180096

If North Korea can transfer their newly acquired ampoulization technology (basically allowing them to store fuel and keep the rockets ready to launch at moment's notice, even if lying inert for years in silos), then it will be a huge bonus.

 

[Oldman1]

If they get models that go to 2000km, I wonder what the purpose of Tomohawks become, if not totally phased out? JASSM can do everything Tomahawk can do, but better, if not hindered by range.

They will keep the Tomahawks in stock since they are still useful but will end production if in theory JASSM was the new Tomahawk.

Their is a moralistic argument to make, with regards to disguising military as civilian, and risk getting civilians being targeted, but I think in terms of pure practicality, it would make for a better system (assuming same performance) for countries that are operating defensively, and who are dealing with a more advanced adversary. Naturally, I don't see an advantage for the US to convert their equipment with that disguise in mind, as it's pointless.

Indeed, Ukraine could use things like that, and we see Taiwan also employing these techniques with regards to their ground attack systems and air defence. Although, we haven't really seen much evidence Russia has been able to locate destroy these HIMARs launchers at all anyways lol.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1560897121879859201

As you can see why it needs to be disguised. Also as you mentioned in your previous post, the Russians would have waste so much ammo just trying to destroy every vehicle that looks like HIMARS in disguise.

 

[Stryker1982]

the Russians would have waste so much ammo just trying to destroy every vehicle that looks like HIMARS in disguise.

Yes, ammo that they also do not have.

Either they have to expend a whole Iskander missile to immediately destroy the HIMARs as soon as it is spotted and stationary.
Or attack it from the air of which they do not have many precision bombs anyways and are barely running sorties.

UAV based munitions are also not commonly used, we see some videos come out but they are just a few for a war scale this big, their should be several 100s of drone strikes and air strikes each week (at minimum), but we are not seeing that. If that was the case, without big inventory stocks would run out fast as well.

That whole Iran-UAV news may also be completely wrong. It would help them alot if it is true. Russia is just going to have to absorb this problem, which I will assume will only get worse especially if certain other missiles start to be transfered, and woe to Russia if this F-16 training is complete and actually followed through by the US (with HARM loadout), and they also train them on PAC-2/3 systems.