Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Saddam Hussein]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1153072141463691271

There was no airstrike, PMU stated. it was a small fire

 

[TheImmortal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154515194262904833

 

[Websorber]

Iran fires ballistic missile 1,000km in provocative test amid tanker row with US and UK

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587313/iran-fires-ballistic-missile-test-tanker-row-us-uk/

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

When countries/companies/organizations complete a project, they tested it to ensure it is operational and meets requirements. So how does testing 1,000km missile that didn't hit the territory of another country is provocative?

Iran fires ballistic missile 1,000km in provocative test amid tanker row with US and UK

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9587313/iran-fires-ballistic-missile-test-tanker-row-us-uk/

View attachment 570836

 

[Ich]

When countries/companies/organizations complete a project, they tested it to ensure it is operational and meets requirements. So how does testing 1,000km missile that didn't hit the territory of another country is provocative?

Cause if not, all war preparations and wars will end with a loaud laughter immediately.

 

[Shams313]

Iskander looking tactical BM by N. Korea...600 km range..pretty good development...

 

[yavar]

 

[raptor22]

When countries/companies/organizations complete a project, they tested it to ensure it is operational and meets requirements. So how does testing 1,000km missile that didn't hit the territory of another country is provocative?

In the world of double standards it's is provocative ...

 

[PeeD]

We'll have to disagree on your assessment that Iran could retaliate against U.S. soil without having a nuclear deterrence. Again, simply put a U.S. President reckless enough to start a war with a country as powerful as Iran will no doubt be reckless enough to respond to a conventional ICBM attack on U.S. soil with Nukes. These aren't ppl that care much about international law!

Yes we have to disagree. The scenario could be with a ultimatum to hit the pentagon at a certain hour with one conventional missile. Then the pace would increase and no warnings made anymore. No salvo attack to avoid misunderstandings. Even a proportional, single U.S nuclear counter attack would create huge public backlash.

But the insurance would be a latent capability or secret arsenal to enable retaliation --> forbid U.S nuclear attack.

I also disagree with you on Sea based weapons like light carriers & missile cruisers, for Iran's use a +450ft long missile cruiser & UAV carrier armed with a large number of UAV's & UCAV's (like the Saegheh) will go a long way and should most definitely be considered as a priority project for Iran's Navy because at the end of the day Iran can NOT afford to build a military based on the assumption that the U.S. is the one and ONLY threat now and forever. And Iran most defiantly needs to take better advantage of it's vast coastline by building coastal cities that with it comes the requirement of creating jobs and expansion of ship building both in the civilian and military sector should be on top of the list especially in areas east of Jask and using military as a starting point to create infrastructure, training personal & providing security is the best and only way forward.

I agree with you if the scale is a expedition force like Russias carrier group. The bulk of global strike capability would be performed by that conventional ICBM.
Honestly with the end of the INF treaty, I see a arms race which will increase the number of states with AshBM and hypesonic anti-ship weapons.
Survivability of carriers and warships will reduce and only remain effective against a much inferior opponent. I agree with you that we should have it, but Iran can't rely its global strike component on such a costly and fragile asset. 1-3 such expedition groups max.

As for further diplomacy on the JCPOA at the end of the day when a company like Pequot where a large portion of it's income is dependent on Iran runs with it's tail tucked in and not because their government wants it but simply out of fear of the U.S might do to them then what exactly is the point of further dialogue with the EU after a year of fruitless talks? If economic hardship in Iran is continuing to mount it's mainly due to this governments failure to swiftly react to U.S. actions after their withdraw of the JCPOA that could have potentially brought them back down to reality! Also, when Trump appoint ppl like Bolton and Pompeo around him then clearly there is absolutely 0 room for any kind of real diplomacy with this U.S. administration.
And the tactic of waiting out Trump and hoping for a more logical U.S. administration ONLY works if you don't show weakness by doing nothing. Fact is the next US administration will have NO reason to quickly remove sanctions and have this matter settled. However, what they will do is quite predictable. They will take advantage of the situation and drag it out with kind words while pressure mounts until Iran finally makes a major backroom concession in exchange and unless this administration plans to give up our missile program as easy as they gave up our SLV Program then they best go full force on the nuclear program by going well beyond Iran's civilian needs before hand. And unless Iranian politicians are now under the delusion keh Democrat ha ashegheh cheshmo abroomon shodan then they best act. And that's only if Trump doesn't get reelected! And I believe the best way to ensure that he doesn't get reelected is to test a Nuke before the U.S. elections to show the utter failure of his foreign policy but to properly do that Iran has to leave the JCPOA & the NPT before hand to show that those agreements and mechanisms actually worked when they were in place. And I don't believe that to be an easy rout but rather a necessary rout due to the economic pressures we have faced because we are already being punished for something we haven't actually done so we might as well do the deed already and get it over with!

JCPOA is Irans key to this concept:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran-and-conventional-counter-force.601382/

I understand why Iranian Patriots don't like to hear it but my understanding of Barjam is something completely different to theirs. JCPOA can give Iran a unique conventional counter-force capability, I don't care much about international relations or economical benefits.
Plus I think there is a high probability that Iran already has a nuclear weapons capability right now. The U.S probably only signed it because the awareness of Irans secret nuclear arsenal and Trump used his mad-man public image to take a emergency exit out of it.
So my view on the issue is completely different. I actually think Barjam was a political miracle, masterminded by the Leader himself.

 

[TheImmortal]

Guess Iran decided to skip Shahab-4

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154639686482182144

 

[Draco.IMF]

Guess Iran decided to skip Shahab-4

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154639686482182144

Babak..and I just stopped reading further

 

[Blue In Green]

Correct me if I'm wrong but would it be logical to assume that Iran has upgraded or is in the process of upgrading the guidance capabilities of its older Shahab line of BM's with those new guidance modules?

 

[PeeD]

North Koreas test of its Iskander-like missile has implications for the Zolfaghar and Dezful.

South Koreans claim that their sensors have detected aero-maneuvering which involved a pop-up maneuver following a vertical dive.

One assumed advantage the Iskander had over the Zolfaghar, were its vernier thrusters which allowed sudden maneuvers in near-exo-atmospheric conditions. The North Korean missile seems to skip their use and instead do a somewhat complicated aero-breaking maneuver to achieve similar maneuvers in result.

We can expect the Zolfaghar/Dezful to have a similar capability if used in an anti-ABM mode.
Skipping the vernier thruster subsystem cuts the costs but the North Korean missile will pull less instant Gs in the pre-dive maneuvering phase and probably the early phases of the dive maneuver.
The Zolfaghar and Dezful on the other hand have significantly larger aerodynamic steering capability due to its small "MaRV".
Hence the disadvantage of the Zolfaghar and Dezul over the Iskander might have been solved by these advanced flight-dynamic maneuvering capabilities.
Or let me put it simpler: Zolfaghar and Dezful are like an Iskander with larger fins at just 1%3 of the size and the North Korean missile has shown that advanced maneuvering can be performed by a missile without vernier thrusters.

Iskander:
- Thrust vectoring system
- Vernier thrusters
- Fins

North Korean Iskander
- Thrust vectoring system
- Fins

Zolfaghar/Dezful
- Fins

If the resulting trajectory and maneuvering can be the same, then the Iranian design has saved the costs of two complex subsystems.

Simply putting larger fins on those Iskanders would create many problems and penalties, it can only be achieved an "MaRV'ed" design such as the Zolfaghar/Dezful.

Btw: This is an example of a own, unique signature of Irans missile engineering.

 

[Shams313]

Babak..and I just stopped reading further

For some reason i think he is a indian...i donno if anyone already know his nationality..
But lately i found several Indian site doing propaganda business against iran and openly supporting israel... although arabs also supports Israel...

 

[TheImmortal]

North Koreas test of its Iskander-like missile has implications for the Zolfaghar and Dezful.

South Koreans claim that their sensors have detected aero-maneuvering which involved a pop-up maneuver following a vertical dive.

One assumed advantage the Iskander had over the Zolfaghar, were its vernier thrusters which allowed sudden maneuvers in near-exo-atmospheric conditions. The North Korean missile seems to skip their use and instead do a somewhat complicated aero-breaking maneuver to achieve similar maneuvers in result.

We can expect the Zolfaghar/Dezful to have a similar capability if used in an anti-ABM mode.
Skipping the vernier thruster subsystem cuts the costs but the North Korean missile will pull less instant Gs in the pre-dive maneuvering phase and probably the early phases of the dive maneuver.
The Zolfaghar and Dezful on the other hand have significantly larger aerodynamic steering capability due to its small "MaRV".
Hence the disadvantage of the Zolfaghar and Dezul over the Iskander might have been solved by these advanced flight-dynamic maneuvering capabilities.
Or let me put it simpler: Zolfaghar and Dezful are like an Iskander with larger fins at just 1%3 of the size and the North Korean missile has shown that advanced maneuvering can be performed by a missile without vernier thrusters.

Iskander:
- Thrust vectoring system
- Vernier thrusters
- Fins

North Korean Iskander
- Thrust vectoring system
- Fins

Zolfaghar/Dezful
- Fins

If the resulting trajectory and maneuvering can be the same, then the Iranian design has saved the costs of two complex subsystems.

Simply putting larger fins on those Iskanders would create many problems and penalties, it can only be achieved an "MaRV'ed" design such as the Zolfaghar/Dezful.

Btw: This is an example of a own, unique signature of Irans missile engineering.

If Dezful doesn’t have a thrust vectoring system then how can it peform anti-BM maneuvers?

Like I said earlier your claim that NK’s Missile advanced capabilities are a result of advancement in Iran’s domestic program was misled. NK has been developing Missiles far longer than Iran and was the one who gave Iran their first SCUDs.

Like I said the ability for NK to build an Islander like Missile and also use a more modern Russian engine cluster for it’s ICBM program point to a nation stage such as China or Russia or potentially rogue former scientists of either country helping NK.

Iran has NOT demonstrated knowledge in either product.

The whole Ghaem Missile and 90 ton solid fuel engines are at this point as real as a German wunderweapon. Briefly seen and with little intelligence they are just rumors. They may never seen mass production.