Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[VEVAK]

Diego Garcia should be handled with a Khorrmashahr variant. Count on a Salman based ICBM, not the Zoljanah.



What about the U.S setting up a bridgehead near the place it wants to attack and use BM's?

They chose LACM because they had no BM that could do that job back then.
FYI their new "Hypersonic weapons", are basically BMs.



Midgetman or Salman are just much more advanced technology. Similar to Shahab-3 vs. Khorramshahr.
Better everything.

The decision of LACM over BM for the US navy was made in the 80's and given the accuracy of BM and weight requirements compared to range on top of safety issues it was a rather sound decision.

Even if you create a bridgehead somewhere near enough to an enemy territory you wish to invade, how many BM could you possibly deploy and launch from a location before that location is targeted? And how many BM could you possibly deploy to make up for an Airforce?

And how are you gonna counter moving targets at sea, in the air and on the ground?
How do you propose to defend against incoming helos? ships? Aircrafts? Armored Battalions?... And how could you possibly defend your own invading force without Aircrafts?

When your defending your own territory you can afford the logistics of having a vast BM force to counter most fixed targets by spreading them across your territory but for a country that carries out invasion after invasion the logistics alone becomes a rather impossible task

How are you gonna get a foothold in enemy territory to create a beachhead when you can't defend your fleet? How far would this bridgehead be for your intended beachhead?

Right now US has over 30 bases within 300km of Iran that can be considered a bridgehead. How many missiles at each of these bases are you gonna deploy and how many missiles could these locations launch before becoming a target of Iranian retaliatory attacks?

Missile can at best make up for the strike capabilities of an Airforce and that's it! They CAN NOT make up for every aspect of an Airforce! From escort to intercept to transport to attack....

 

[VEVAK]

but PeeD says Zoljaneh is twice heavier than Midgetman So what accounts for Midgetman being a better Missile. I have heard that "weight per range" not including the warhead is not a fixed number for missile..so back to my question..what makes Midgetman a better missile.

Unless every aspect and every aspect ratio of your missile is fixed and uses the same type of tech there would be no weight per range fixed number!
Above the atmosphere the only thing that keeps you up is speed! And Iran can build a single stage missile 2 times the size of the Zoljanah and it's range will not be anywhere near the midgetman or even a 2 stage Zoljanah due to the fact that the size of your nozzle requirement at sea level would be much smaller and different than at high altitudes or in a vacuum! So with the midgetman it's the science and tech behind the upper stages that dictate it's range not the booster size or weight.

So again the number of stages and proper configuration of the stages and light payload is what allows it to travel that distance!

 

[PeeD]

The decision of LACM over BM for the US navy was made in the 80's and given the accuracy of BM and weight requirements compared to range on top of safety issues it was a rather sound decision.

Yeah a sound decision because something like the Pershing-2 was too fragile and expensive, but also still not accurate enough.

Even if you create a bridgehead somewhere near enough to an enemy territory you wish to invade, how many BM could you possibly deploy and launch from a location before that location is targeted? And how many BM could you possibly deploy to make up for an Airforce?

How you want to target mobile missile units over extended ranges?

And how are you gonna counter moving targets at sea, in the air and on the ground?
How do you propose to defend against incoming helos? ships? Aircrafts? Armored Battalions?... And how could you possibly defend your own invading force without Aircrafts?

If you want to invade far away countries, yes, something like Su-57, F-22, Mig-31 or J-20 is helpful.
But all you mentioned have other, very good non-airforce counters.

When your defending your own territory you can afford the logistics of having a vast BM force to counter most fixed targets by spreading them across your territory but for a country that carries out invasion after invasion the logistics alone becomes a rather impossible task

You know what a B-52 or B-21 launched hypersonic missile is? Effectively a ballistic missile something the U.S will need against top opponents at the start of the conflict to allow its tactical airpower to be used.
They have realized this and stopped the INF treaty.

So its not a matter of choice: Original stealth airpower and CMs of the U.S will not be sufficient against strong powers. They are forced to create hypersonic weapons to remain a superpower.
The difference is that their secure isolated position and sophisticated strategic airpower, on which they worked for 90 or so years already, is used instead of truck based TELs.

How are you gonna get a foothold in enemy territory to create a beachhead when you can't defend your fleet? How far would this bridgehead be for your intended beachhead?

You start at a more distant bridgehead outside the reach of your opponent.

Right now US has over 30 bases within 300km of Iran that can be considered a bridgehead. How many missiles at each of these bases are you gonna deploy and how many missiles could these locations launch before becoming a target of Iranian retaliatory attacks?

Missiles launch fast, that's their quality. And they dont need runways and are small and mobile.

Missile can at best make up for the strike capabilities of an Airforce and that's it! They CAN NOT make up for every aspect of an Airforce! From escort to intercept to transport to attack....

Iran has just not the luck to basically be a isolated continent between two oceans. Irans airfield would be priority targets for CMs and future hypersonic weapons.

Airforce can be useful, but in Irans case, only in a very limited way.

 

[Surenas]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1364309096158134275

 

[Shawnee]

@PeeD
Why is it wrong to consider the first stage of Zoljanah partly carbon fiber?

It changes the calculations a lot. It was done for prior first stages before.

 

[yavar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1364309096158134275

 

[PeeD]

@PeeD
Why is it wrong to consider the first stage of Zoljanah partly carbon fiber?

It changes the calculations a lot. It was done for prior first stages before.

Its clearly not a carbon fiber design yet.

 

[Shawnee]

Its clearly not a carbon fiber design yet.

This might be a dumb question but how can we tell that based on the design.

I am not a mechanical/aerospace engineer. My observation is based on the evolution of Raad500 from Fateh 110. Zohair composite engine was unveiled then. The body of the first stage stayed the same, despite the changes in the nose and nozzle/guidance.

There was a rumor that from now on the production lines are moving toward composite. This is not official of course.

 

[Iskander]

 

[PeeD]

This might be a dumb question but how can we tell that based on the design.

I am not a mechanical/aerospace engineer. My observation is based on the evolution of Raad500 from Fateh 110. Zohair composite engine was unveiled then. The body of the first stage stayed the same, despite the changes in the nose and nozzle/guidance.

There was a rumor that from now on the production lines are moving toward composite. This is not official of course.

The weld-lines show that its a steel design, as well its low payload.

 

[Hack-Hook]

@PeeD
Why is it wrong to consider the first stage of Zoljanah partly carbon fiber?

It changes the calculations a lot. It was done for prior first stages before.

Well making the second stage from carbon fiber is a lot more beneficial than builsing the first stage from carbon fibre .

 

[VEVAK]

Yeah a sound decision because something like the Pershing-2 was too fragile and expensive, but also still not accurate enough.

Not to mention the weight requirement of the missile, it's launcher,...

How you want to target mobile missile units over extended ranges?

If you think hitting a mobile launcher is hard, just imagine how hard hitting airborne targets will be over extended ranges to make up for a lack of an Airforce

If you want to invade far away countries, yes, something like Su-57, F-22, Mig-31 or J-20 is helpful.
But all you mentioned have other, very good non-airforce counters.

They do not have a feasible none Aircraft counter that could possibly match the the various tasks the U.S. military requires. From transport and logistics to escort and intercept to providing cover and attack.

You know what a B-52 or B-21 launched hypersonic missile is? Effectively a ballistic missile something the U.S will need against top opponents at the start of the conflict to allow its tactical airpower to be used.
They have realized this and stopped the INF treaty.

So its not a matter of choice: Original stealth airpower and CMs of the U.S will not be sufficient against strong powers. They are forced to create hypersonic weapons to remain a superpower.
The difference is that their secure isolated position and sophisticated strategic airpower, on which they worked for 90 or so years already, is used instead of truck based TELs.

The fact that the best way to take on and take out high value enemy Air Defense targets is with high speed projectiles and Ballistic Missiles no doubt top the list of being one of the best solution to carry on that task, that fact doesn't change the requirement for an Airforce nor does it make BM feasible replacement for a long list of other task that an Airforce would be responsible for.

Meaning you can NOT replace an Airforce with BM as a feasible solution!

You start at a more distant bridgehead outside the reach of your opponent.

Such a solution would expressly restrict your capabilities against enemies who do not have the power to target and attack your bridgehead!
And financial costs you would have to pay to be able to take on a significant number of targets against an obviously weaker appointment would be absurd!
Nor does it give you the capability to provide cover for your own invading forces
etc....

Missiles launch fast, that's their quality. And they dont need runways and are small and mobile.

How ever fast you think mobile launcher are you have to somehow deploy a vast number of them to a location and store a vast number how do you propose to do that without Aircover?

Do you honestly think that if the U.S. didn't have a vast superior Air Power a country like Iran would simply stand by and watch the U.S. deploy 1000's of Tel to the region? clearly not!
Without air cover US forces wouldn't survive a week in our region

Iran has just not the luck to basically be a isolated continent between two oceans. Irans airfield would be priority targets for CMs and future hypersonic weapons.

Airforce can be useful, but in Irans case, only in a very limited way.

We are not discussing what is a more feasible options for Iran at present! We are discussing the U.S. choice of Air Power over BM

Even now without any major wars the United States on average drops one bomb every 12 minutes! That is 5 bombs an hour! 120 Bombs a day! which is 43,200 bombs a year! And that's without being involved in any major wars.

To top that off the "long term" effects of such an absurd decision would have dier consequences for their civil aviation.

Even for Iran BM are a good short term option only! BM will NOT make up for Iran's need of Air Power!
Iran needs to be able to transport it's troops and equipment!
Iran requires Helo's and needs to provide cover for it's helo's
Iran requires AWACS, mobile and airborne command.
Iran needs to have the capability to escort it's own aircraft and requires the ability to intercept enemy aircrafts
etc....

 

[PeeD]

Meaning you can NOT replace an Airforce with BM as a feasible solution!

You are straw-manning me a little.

I didn't say the U.S should abandon their airforce in favor for BMs, point is: They have no real BMs or hypersonic missiles at all, at this moment, and working to get them.

The U.S has realized that ranges of typical tacair like F/A-18 or even F-35 are not sufficient to counter advanced enemies (of which there are only a handfull in the world).

They will go for a large B-21 fleet, with strategic range and hypersonic weapons ( more or less BM) that can penetrate the target at extended ranges.

Tacair and drones are only brought in if the key enemy capabilities are degraded. Then they can be used as tactical bombtrucks as you described

If you think hitting a mobile launcher is hard, just imagine how hard hitting airborne targets will be over extended ranges to make up for a lack of an Airforce

In fact less hard.

They do not have a feasible none Aircraft counter that could possibly match the the various tasks the U.S. military requires. From transport and logistics to escort and intercept to providing cover and attack.

No one talks about transport aircrafts here. Its about the old fashioned (2000's) U.S dream of F-35 striking Natanz deep inside Iran via stealth, SDB and other fancy things.
No. This wont work against a country like Iran anymore.

They need more potent weapons, like B-52 delivered hypersonic missiles, or the Pershing-2 if they still had it.

How ever fast you think mobile launcher are you have to somehow deploy a vast number of them to a location and store a vast number how do you propose to do that without Aircover?

Which aircraft can go and strike 2000-3000km range BM's for which you would need tacair to counter it?
Its all about the ranges.

Even for Iran BM are a good short term option only! BM will NOT make up for Iran's need of Air Power!

Again, I didn't say Iran should completely abandon its airforce. Just the vast priority is with the missile forces.

Iran requires AWACS, mobile and airborne command.

Want to see those large soft assets survive and take off from their homebase after it received a salvo of 2500km range hypersonic missiles fired at safe distance from B-52.

2-3 AEW with 100 long range Su-57, for offensive force projection against typical low capability neighbors? That would be good, but not more.

Iran needs to have the capability to escort it's own aircraft and requires the ability to intercept enemy aircrafts
etc....

Such a capability is good to have and should be there, The vast majority of resources should be put in missiles, then drones and then tacair.

So while in 1980, tacair made up 100% of high-end capability, 20% are whats good today.

 

[Blue In Green]

Surprised by this one.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1365330714720407557

I didn't know the Americans had drone footage of the attack.

 

[Stryker1982]

Inside the attack that almost sent the U.S. to war with Iran

David Martin speaks with troops who were there as an Iranian ballistic missile attack rained down on Al Asad Airbase in Iraq, part of six days that saw the U.S. and Iran go to the brink of war.

www.cbsnews.com

Theirs some short footage I've never seen before, including Drone footage of Ain-Al Assad taken by the Americans themselves monitoring the base while the missiles hit. Full story will be reported on Sunday

Article:


In January of last year, Iran launched the largest ballistic missile attack ever against Americans. Eleven missiles, each carrying a warhead weighing more than 1,000 pounds, slammed into Al Asad Airbase in Iraq where 2,000 U.S. troops and scores of aircraft were based. General Frank McKenzie, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, recalled that night, telling David Martin, "Things are happening that could take us to war if we don't make the correct move here." 60 Minutes has obtained unreleased drone footage of those incoming warheads which an Army major said were "Like a freight train going by you." Martin's report will include first-hand accounts of the bombardment from survivors and will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, February 28 at 7 p.m. ET/PT on CBS.

Iran launched the attack in retaliation for an American drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani, its most powerful military officer, six days before. McKenzie tells Martin that then-President Trump ordered the strike on Soleimani because he was planning attacks against Americans in Iraq. "We saw intelligence reports where Qassem Soleimani was moving various attack streams forward against our forces in Iraq, against our embassy and against other bases there… Perhaps in hours, perhaps in days, probably not weeks," McKenzie says.

When U.S. intelligence detected Iranian preparations for the missile attack, McKenzie had enough time to evacuate the base of 1,000 troops and 50 aircraft. McKenzie says without the evacuation, "I think we might have lost 20 or 30 airplanes and we'd have lost 100 to 150 U.S. personnel," adding, "We had a plan to retaliate if Americans had died."

Iran fired a total of 16 missiles – five missed and 11 struck Al Asad. "It was an attack certainly like nothing I've ever seen or experienced… Their missiles are accurate," McKenzie says. "They hit pretty much where they wanted to hit."

There was no defense against the missiles for the troops who remained at the base except to take cover. Army Major Alan Johnson tells Martin, "We start heading down maybe 135 meters, make it about a third of the way there, the Big Voice we call it, clicks in, 'Incoming, incoming, take cover, take cover, take cover.' I've got another football field to run. I don't know when this next missile's going to hit." The missiles sounded, "Like a freight train going by you." Johnson describes cramming roughly 40 people into a bunker designed to protect just ten people from much smaller munitions.

More than 100 of the troops who rode out the attack at Al Asad that night were diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury from the blasts. Johnson says he still has headaches, ringing in his ears and nightmares. He doesn't know how he survived. "Luck. The only thing I can actually come up with is that hand of God protected us. Because, really, nobody should have lived through this."