Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[sha ah]

This site has the best quality images of the Ayn Al Assad base after the missile strike.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-missile-strikes-on-al-assad-air-base-in-iraq

Too many people overestimate how many missiles Iran produces.

Also 100’s of missiles would need 100’s of TELs. They don’t just magically leave the ground by themselves.

 

[TheImmortal]

This site has the best quality images of the Ayn Al Assad base after the missile strike.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-missile-strikes-on-al-assad-air-base-in-iraq

6 F-4s launching stand off PGM could have done more damage then this.

 

[OldTwilight]

6 F-4s launching stand off PGM could have done more damage then this.

even 60 F4 couldn't reach the target in first place ...

 

[Sina-1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1216163191022968833

 

[TheImmortal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1216163191022968833

Curious to hear what his “projects” were? Longer range missiles? Multi warhead missiles? Missiles that don’t require TELs?

even 60 F4 couldn't reach the target in first place ...

They could. You just overestimate how well air defenses work and underestimate the range a stand off munition has.

Israel drops payloads off the coast of Lebanon and they hit as far as Aleppo.

Iran could go to the tip of “the cat” in Iran dive low and fly a little bit into Iraqi Kurdistan and attack Erbil base easily and pulverize it. Iraqi Kurdistan has no Patriot systems from what I am aware of.

At the same time you would have F-14’s patrolling the border as the F-4s return back. If somehow US F-16 is on the F-4s tail then the F-14s climb and release their Fakkours likely resulting in a kill Or force the F-16s to retreat.

My point is the same amount of damage can be done by air force planes. Unlike missiles, satellites cannot pick up emissions from a plane taking off (that’s what long range radar is for).

Missiles are easy to locate, preparations, etc. in peace time you can get some shots off because the enemy doesn’t know if you are just moving missiles around/taking defensive posturing/or a 10 other reasons. But in war you can be assured IF intelligence/sats pick up missiles on TEL then they are getting attacked no questions asked.

 

[OldTwilight]

Curious to hear what his “projects” were? Longer range missiles? Multi warhead missiles? Missiles that don’t require TELs?

Missiles are easy to locate, preparations, etc. in peace time you can get some shots off because the enemy doesn’t know if you are just moving missiles around/taking defensive posturing/or a 10 other reasons. But in war you can be assured IF intelligence/sats pick up missiles on TEL then they are getting attacked no questions asked.

plan need airbases as well , so destroying their air base or monitoring airbases are a lot easier than tracking missiles ...

 

[TheImmortal]

plan need airbases as well , so destroying their air base or monitoring airbases are a lot easier than tracking missiles ...

Wrong. Syrian air bases were attacked by US cruise missiles and they were flying planes off of it 8-10 hours later!

It is incredibly hard to take down a military air base. Runways can be repaired in hours and to disable a runway you need major firepower.

Missiles are relatively easy to track because they have to be stored in secure locations with proper precautions in place to prevent accidental explosions as well as destruction from enemy forces.

 

[OldTwilight]

Wrong. Syrian air bases were attacked by US cruise missiles and they were flying planes off of it 8-10 hours later!

It is incredibly hard to take down a military air base. Runways can be repaired in hours and to disable a runway you need major firepower.

Missiles are relatively easy to track because they have to be stored in secure locations with proper precautions in place to prevent accidental explosions as well as destruction from enemy forces.

no sir , if they attack the fighter jet depot , fuel storage tank , command control and etcs... the base become utterly uselss ...

and If I was a desicion maker , I wouldn't start an air raid in hostile territory with 50 years old fighters like Iranians F4s

 

[sha ah]

I have a few questions, for anyone that knows the answers.

So Iran launched 16 missiles all together. 4 malfunctioned, 1 missed its target and landed in field in Irbil, 11 apparently hit the Al Assad site or close by. Out of those 11, 5-6 hit specific buildings, including a command center, wheres 2 missiles seem to have hit pavement and a runway.

So that would be 8 that are accounted for out of the 11. So what happened to the other 3 which supposedly hit the Ayn Al Assad base ?

So honestly that's not very impressive and not nearly as impressive as the Aramco operation recently in Saudi Arabia. I guess launching a volley of missiles is hit or miss, sometimes a matter of luck, especially considering how sophisticated and prone to failure missile technology is. Look at so many recent space launches in the US that have failed one way or another.

Realistically though it doesn't seem as if Iran was trying to inflict mass casualties onto US forces, who for the most part seem to have had enough time to scramble into bomb shelters. Iran even informed the Iraqi PM before the strike and there are even rumors of Iran coordinating the strike with the US, however I'm skeptical about that. Anyways, If causing mass casualties was actually the aim then Iran could have easily used cruise missiles at bases closer to the border and/or an initial volley of cruise missiles at radar stations. Another option could have been for Iran to use missiles with much larger warheads.

So here's a question, how many launchers does Iran have all together ? Does anyone know ? How many missiles can Iran launch at one time and how long would it take on average until the next volley ?

Were the missiles used Fateh or Qiam type ? I'm hearing contradictory information online.

The damage diameter for these missiles seems to be approx 30 meters.

The Fateh has a payload of 500 kg while the Qiam 750 kg ? Let's say Fateh's were used, the maximum range of Fateh-110 is supposed to be 300 km, whereas Fateh-313(Zolfaqar) is 500 km-700 km depending on the source.

So since the missiles traveled approx 400 km, that means that there's a good chance smaller payloads were used correct ?. Do missiles have various payloads depending on the range the missile is going to travel or is it set in stone ?

I mean if you're going to fire a Fateh-110 at only 100 km instead of 400 km, wouldn't it make sense for it to have a heavier payload ? Having two separate payloads would seem to make logical sense no ?

I'm just wondering how much payload causes that 30 meters diameter we see in the picture?

Assuming 500 kg was used, then what would be the damage diameter for the Khoramshahr missile using a 1600-1800 kg payload?

How much larger would the diameter increase with an increase in payload ? Does anyone know how the math works ?

The Khoramshahr is supposed to have a range of 2000 km - 2500 km, but assuming the target was only 1000 km away, would they then use a warhead with a larger payload ?

 

[Raghfarm007]

4 failed missiles is bullcrap that the yanks invente and provided no evidence for...... they also said that they will respond very fast and very hard to the attacks.... and did NOTHING.... and they said that the missiles did little damage, but now we see HUGE damage done.

If anyone believes the US version of the story, then congratulations for passing the retard test with flying cloures.

 

[GWXP]

I have a few questions, for anyone that knows the answers.

So Iran launched 16 missiles all together. 4 malfunctioned, 1 missed its target and landed in field in Irbil, 11 apparently hit the Al Assad site or close by. Out of those 11, 5-6 hit specific buildings, including a command center, wheres 2 missiles seem to have hit pavement and a runway.

So that would be 8 that are accounted for out of the 11. So what happened to the other 3 which supposedly hit the Ayn Al Assad base ?

So honestly that's not very impressive and not nearly as impressive as the Aramco operation recently in Saudi Arabia. I guess launching a volley of missiles is hit or miss, sometimes a matter of luck, especially considering how sophisticated and prone to failure missile technology is. Look at so many recent space launches in the US that have failed one way or another.

Realistically though it doesn't seem as if Iran was trying to inflict mass casualties onto US forces, who for the most part seem to have had enough time to scramble into bomb shelters. Iran even informed the Iraqi PM before the strike and there are even rumors of Iran coordinating the strike with the US, however I'm skeptical about that. Anyways, If causing mass casualties was actually the aim then Iran could have easily used cruise missiles at bases closer to the border and/or an initial volley of cruise missiles at radar stations. Another option could have been for Iran to use missiles with much larger warheads.

So here's a question, how many launchers does Iran have all together ? Does anyone know ? How many missiles can Iran launch at one time and how long would it take on average until the next volley ?

Were the missiles used Fateh or Qiam type ? I'm hearing contradictory information online.

The damage diameter for these missiles seems to be approx 30 meters.

The Fateh has a payload of 500 kg while the Qiam 750 kg ? Let's say Fateh's were used, the maximum range of Fateh-110 is supposed to be 300 km, whereas Fateh-313(Zolfaqar) is 500 km-700 km depending on the source.

So since the missiles traveled approx 400 km, that means that there's a good chance smaller payloads were used correct ?. Do missiles have various payloads depending on the range the missile is going to travel or is it set in stone ?

I mean if you're going to fire a Fateh-110 at only 100 km instead of 400 km, wouldn't it make sense for it to have a heavier payload ? Having two separate payloads would seem to make logical sense no ?

I'm just wondering how much payload causes that 30 meters diameter we see in the picture?

Assuming 500 kg was used, then what would be the damage diameter for the Khoramshahr missile using a 1600-1800 kg payload?

How much larger would the diameter increase with an increase in payload ? Does anyone know how the math works ?

The Khoramshahr is supposed to have a range of 2000 km - 2500 km, but assuming the target was only 1000 km away, would they then use a warhead with a larger payload ?

View attachment 599434

It is usually one launcher per 8-10 missiles. But Chinese short range missile DF-15 (similar to Fateh-313) has one launcher per 3 missiles.

It is in Iranian interest to have as many launchers as possible and launch large numbers of missiles simultaneously in order to overwhelm enemy air defenses.

You should note that it will take couple of weeks before US will destroy Iranian air defenses and establish air superiority and then start hunting Iranian launchers. So Iran needs to launch all of its missiles in a short period of time in order to overwhelm enemy defenses and do as much damage as possible.

Now I read recently in Washington post and Fox News referring to Pentagon estimate that Iran has more than 2000 ballistic missiles.

So, if Iran has 2000 ballistic missiles of various types and ranges, there might be 200-400 launchers. So Iran can exhaust its arsenal within 2-5 days of massive fire----hardly US will be able to establish air superiority withing this period of time.

Note that most enemy targets are located withing 320-400 km of Iranian border: oil facilities, desalination plants, enemy bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE---so the most widely produced Iranian missile should be Fateh-313.

What lies 1000km away from Iran---are enemy air bases that will house US tactical air force ---more accurate Khorramshahr missiles and less accurate Shahab-3 with cluster munition warheads are prepared for these targets.

Now, having 2000 missiles, we can assume that 1000 missiles will either be intercepted or will malfunction and only remaining 1000 missiles will hit their targets, giving 50% effectiveness.

At first, Iran can launch older less accurate missiles like Shahab-1,2 as well as artillery rockets like Zelzal---in order to exhaust enemy's stockpile of Patriot missiles and after enemy's stockpile is exhausted Iran can launch more accurate Fateh-313, Desfoul and Khorramshahr missiles in order to hit the targets---or there can be a mixed launch of less accurate and more advanced missiles.

Now, in its arsenal Iran has many older missiles like Shahab-1, Shahab-2 which have a CEP of 500-700meters----These missiles can be armed with cluster munitions to compensate for there lack of accuracy and be launched with cluster munitions against very large targets--- like 4 major oil stabilization plants in Saudi Arabia: Abqaiq, Qurais, Ras Tanura, Al-Jubayl as well as refineries and 2 major ports (like Ras Tanura oil terminal)---thus doing enormous damage even with less accurate missiles.

More accurate missiles can target aircrafts under open air with cluster munitions or fuel tanks, command posts, personnel barracks.

In addition to ballistic missiles, Iran has several hundreds of cruise missiles. At first Iran can launch large numbers of decoys like Karrar UAV in order to exhaust enemy's stockpile of air defenses missiles--and than launch more accurate and effective Soumar missiles.

So overall, Iran can hit more than a thousand targets with precise cruise and ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads.

 

[skyshadow]

hitting the exact tent from 500 km with pinpoint accuracy



An images that obtained by "Intellitimes" Blog, confirm that the iranian IRGC Missiles Attack on US forces at "Al Asad Air Base" in Iraq, was targating Special tents that eas used for hiding ֳִMQ-9 Reaper drones that were assigned for QassemSoleimani "Mission to Kill" Operation.

 

[VEVAK]

Too many people overestimate how many missiles Iran produces.

Also 100’s of missiles would need 100’s of TELs. They don’t just magically leave the ground by themselves.

I know for an absolute fact that it's people like you that routinely under estimate Iran's stockpile!

FYI that's mostly the Qiam stockpile, Iranian tactical BM's like the Fatteh-110, Fatteh-313 & Zolfaghar neither need to be fuel nor require expensive TEL's....

 

[TheImmortal]

I know for an absolute fact that it's people like you that routinely under estimate Iran's stockpile!

FYI that's mostly the Qiam stockpile, Iranian tactical BM's like the Fatteh-110, Fatteh-313 & Zolfaghar neither need to be fuel nor require expensive TEL's....

I would expect nothing more from a government shill. If you think Iran has more than 5,000-7,500 long range missiles you are out of your mind. US intelligence is 2,000 and I’m going to be liberal and say that it’s 3x that number so 6,000 or so.

Take 6,000 x it by 700kg warhead. And see what you get. Russia/US/Syria dropped that many bombs in Syria in Just one YEAR.

So now not even 6,000 missiles will be enough fire power to target US military assets considering it takes about 200-300 missiles to severely destroy an airbase alone assuming 30-40% fail for whatever reason.

So Iran will blow through its entire missile stockpile in the first year of war assuming a conservative # of 10-20% of missile stockpile get destroyed by enemy bombardment on Iran followed by another 30-40% fail to hit their target (intercepted, tech failure, miss target, etc).


So let’s run the numbers again assuming a HIGHLY optimistic scenario of Iran haven’t a stockpile of 7,500 missiles and using the numbers above of up to 40-60% never being fired or reaching target or hitting target that means you should reduce the number of missiles by 3,250 missiles.

Meaning Iran will have an arsenal of 3,250 missiles that score direct hits on their target. And if Iran doesn’t have an arsenal of 7,500 missiles and has something like 3,000 then only 1,500 missiles will score direct hits.

That is simply not enough in all out war. This is why Iran needs an air force as well.

Time will prove I am right.

 

[Philosopher]

Immortal does raise a good point. Even if we assume 10,000 700-2000KM ranged ballistic missiles, that will not be enough for a long conflict. Of course if Iran can truly manfucture these missile in crazy numbers that will help, but Iran simply cannot JUST rely on ballistic missiles. I suppose that's why Iran is investing in swarm stealthy uavs as well, but could they be very effective in a war scanrio when they would be jammed?

airforce is a must in the long term. What I also want to see Iran make is 1000's of long range cannons built in Iran and hidden/ready to fire.

Have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon