Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[Arminkh]

It is never a single item. However, when the single item is something that was technically flawed in analysis and used as instruction on how to deter an enemy, we can only wonder about the value of those other items.

Well that is one of the reasons that I suggested you read that article to the end. Bottom line is that the decision makers in your country don't think the way you do. Read about Millennium Simulation and etc. Read about blinding a US spy satellite using laser. I don't know any other country that has ever done that, do you? Read about hacking into RQ-170 navigation system and making it land inside Iran. Read about mobile OTH radars with a range of 500 km. Read about fixed OTH radars which can scan the Mediterranean coasts.

While some countries like Indonesia and Malaysia can't detect a large airplane like Boeing 777 passing right over their head in a route that they don't expect it. Iran detects drones like RQ-170 and others that try to violate its airspace even though it has a mountainous area with a lot of blind spots. You simply can't compare Iran to any of the countries around it.

No, they did not. But you missed the point. No surprise there.

The point was that the military option was always available and the outcome -- the defeat of the Iraqi military -- was %99 certain. When the political options were rendered worthless by Iraq, the military option was exercised, and the result was that %99 certainty. You seems to think that if political options were available, rationality will prevail. History proved you wrong.

Iraq was an easy target ? That is a laugh...

You said that NOT because you have any inkling on what is militarily an 'easy' target but because you want to diminish the tactical lessons for Iran.

Political options towards what? What did US want to achieve that it couldn't through political means? Dismantling a nonexistent mass destruction weapon program? No. US simply wanted a foothold in that area because it was getting ready to attack Iran. If you are old enough to remember the news back then, most of the analysis were pointing towards that. If you read that article to the end you will see that a major petroleum company was warned by the Russians back then to leave Iran as US attack on Iran was imminent.

What was Iraq when US attacked? A bankrupt country that was selling oil for food and healthcare supplies. The Kurds were kind of hitting their own drum on the north. Whole its air space was a no fly zone and its air force was simply nonexistent. If that doesn't seem like an easy target to you then you are discrediting your army's might.

Who am I to diminish the tactical lessons for Iran? Iran has smart military leaders who have shown the capacity to learn.

There were a lot of objections to US invading Iraq. As an example, relation with France fell into its lowest since god knows when and US lost its public support in most of the countries. Isn't that what politics is all about? Winning the public support? That is one of the things that Obama is trying to correct right now.

every country is an easy "target" compared to US, and there were no political reasons to stop US from invading Iraq
US actually used the events during that time to get a political backing for an invasion.

Well I don't even need to spend much time rejecting your first statement. Is China an easy target? How about India? Russia maybe?

Read the news about that period and you will see that US status in public opinion fell into its lowest since Vietnam war. Even its major ally, Canada didn't want to support it in that war until US threatened to stop importing Canada's wood and meat. France was another good example. These are all political reasons.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Iraq was battle hardened, Iraqi troopers are fanatics,

Both statements are totally wrong for sure.

1-Iraq was battle exhausted.
2-Iraqi troopers were really tired ad exhausted with the regime.

Iraq was a victime and the west was lucky fighting a nation that is simply tired and looks for savior no matter who is that savior is. they wanted to get rid of a regime that is extremely retard and idiot.

 

[Arminkh]

Both statements are totally wrong for sure.

1-Iraq was battle exhausted.
2-Iraqi troopers were really tired ad exhausted with the regime.

Iraq was a victime and the west was lucky fighting a nation that is simply tired and looks for savior no matter who is that savior is. they wanted to get rid of a regime that is extremely retard and idiot.

Thanks for the input. Anybody who just has red the news of those days knows this.

 

[gambit]

Well that is one of the reasons that I suggested you read that article to the end. Bottom line is that the decision makers in your country don't think the way you do. Read about Millennium Simulation and etc. Read about blinding a US spy satellite using laser. I don't know any other country that has ever done that, do you? Read about hacking into RQ-170 navigation system and making it land inside Iran. Read about mobile OTH radars with a range of 500 km. Read about fixed OTH radars which can scan the Mediterranean coasts.

While some countries like Indonesia and Malaysia can't detect a large airplane like Boeing 777 passing right over their head in a route that they don't expect it. Iran detects drones like RQ-170 and others that try to violate its airspace even though it has a mountainous area with a lot of blind spots. You simply can't compare Iran to any of the countries around it.

Every one of those items have been debated here before and the arguments for them were found inadequate. I provided plenty of technical support for why somethings cannot be as the Iranians claimed, or why somethings were unlikely to happened as the Iranians claimed, or why somethings were just illogical.

Political options towards what? What did US want to achieve that it couldn't through political means? Dismantling a nonexistent mass destruction weapon program? No. US simply wanted a foothold in that area because it was getting ready to attack Iran. If you are old enough to remember the news back then, most of the analysis were pointing towards that. If you read that article to the end you will see that a major petroleum company was warned by the Russians back then to leave Iran as US attack on Iran was imminent.

If I am old enough to remember ? I am 52 yrs old and a Desert Storm veteran.

You want to take on the WMD issue ? Bring it on, son. Keep one post about it, and I will respond in one post that will render you speechless at your ignorance of the issue.

But besides that, the US gave Iraq slightly over a decade of negotiations and hoping Saddam Hussein would comply. So what political options were you yearning for ? You think ten yrs of negotiations and inspection were not political ?

What was Iraq when US attacked? A bankrupt country that was selling oil for food and healthcare supplies. The Kurds were kind of hitting their own drum on the north. Whole its air space was a no fly zone and its air force was simply nonexistent. If that doesn't seem like an easy target to you then you are discrediting your army's might.

I am talking about Desert Storm, of which the Iranian military may experience its own version.

Who am I to diminish the tactical lessons for Iran? Iran has smart military leaders who have shown the capacity to learn.

Your military leadership is churning out propaganda of one fantastic weapon after another on a quarterly basis. Please...

Well I don't even need to spend much time rejecting your first statement. Is China an easy target? How about India? Russia maybe?

You said Iraq was an 'easy' target ? Which time was it ?

Read the news about that period and you will see that US status in public opinion fell into its lowest since Vietnam war. Even its major ally, Canada didn't want to support it in that war until US threatened to stop importing Canada's wood and meat. France was another good example. These are all political reasons.

Am not interested in vetting the public opinions of foreign countries. Am looking at this from a military perspective and that perspective tells me that your Iranian military leadership is one that is scared, not US according to whoever wrote that crap that you cited.

 

[Arminkh]

Every one of those items have been debated here before and the arguments for them were found inadequate. I provided plenty of technical support for why somethings cannot be as the Iranians claimed, or why somethings were unlikely to happened as the Iranians claimed, or why somethings were just illogical.


If I am old enough to remember ? I am 52 yrs old and a Desert Storm veteran.

You want to take on the WMD issue ? Bring it on, son. Keep one post about it, and I will respond in one post that will render you speechless at your ignorance of the issue.

But besides that, the US gave Iraq slightly over a decade of negotiations and hoping Saddam Hussein would comply. So what political options were you yearning for ? You think ten yrs of negotiations and inspection were not political ?


I am talking about Desert Storm, of which the Iranian military may experience its own version.


Your military leadership is churning out propaganda of one fantastic weapon after another on a quarterly basis. Please...


You said Iraq was an 'easy' target ? Which time was it ?


Am not interested in vetting the public opinions of foreign countries. Am looking at this from a military perspective and that perspective tells me that your Iranian military leadership is one that is scared, not US according to whoever wrote that crap that you cited.

Suite yourself. As someone who is lucky enough to live during his country's golden age, you are entitled to your arrogance.

 

[gambit]

Suite yourself. As someone who is lucky enough to live during his country's golden age, you are entitled to your arrogance.

America's 'golden age' is not here, yet.

We may not reach our 'golden age' because we accomplishes great things, even though accomplishing great things like creating the Internet are inevitable for US, rather, we will accomplish great things because the rest of the world will go to shit, to put things bluntly, pardon me.

Relativity is how people see and assesses everything, from inanimate objects to countries. There is no 'fast' or 'slow' but 'faster' and 'slower'. Likewise, if people see turmoil and even complete chaos in their parts of the world, and your mullahs are contributing to problems in your part of the world, the people will look at US and see a better life that they could have had, if it were not for <insert dictator's name here>.

THAT is how things will be.

 

[Azeri440]

Well I don't even need to spend much time rejecting your first statement. Is China an easy target? How about India? Russia maybe?

Read the news about that period and you will see that US status in public opinion fell into its lowest since Vietnam war. Even its major ally, Canada didn't want to support it in that war until US threatened to stop importing Canada's wood and meat. France was another good example. These are all political reasons.

I was mainly talking about non-nuclear countries. you talk as if the public opinion fell to 0%
more than half of Americans supported the war and that is all they need. A lack of support by some other countries is also
not something important considered by the president and the congress. Only the public opinion for the next election counts.

 

[lonelyman]

Thats my baby

seriously , its IRANIAN engine works just perfect , whereas some failed states cannot even buy a germen engine and adapt it to their american "UCAV" . LOL

so proud of our scientists

Some of them are begging German masters to clean their toilets to make some pennies, what do you expect?

 

[The SC]

Mr @gambit.
You are talking about a regime that has overthrown a friendly regime of yours that did not work quite well for the Iranians, but maybe quite well for the US global strategy. You are still making the same mistake all over the planet with your "friends". One has only to look at all of your friends, less the oil rich ones (and still...) who live well under your influence!?
I have nothing against your patriotism, you are entitled to it. But please spare us the fiction. You know like the majority of us knows that The US could in no way win the WW2 in Europe without the USSR, let alone in the Pacific against Japan and the use of nuclear weapons!!!!!?
The Vietnam war was a catastrophic event for France then for the US, Korean war is another instance...
In Iraq, without regional allies and bases, the US on its own had no chance of waging, let alone winning a war, So the whole thing had to be staged to scare the Sheiks to the core of their souls, i.e,: the loss of their money, oil and status, to accuse Iraq of possessing WMDs to enhance the scare, and smoothen the crusade like invasion covered by the same ignorant and greedy sheiks, all of it on behalf of your GOD Usrael (I can not find any other expression to describe it in reality, since the only one to whom we as Muslims will surrender our riches, faiths, souls and lives is The real GOD, the creator of heaven and earth).
You could fool the Iraqis who in my own opinion, were living a million time better than today, to believe in you, but that did not last for more than a couple of months, when they have your intentions exposed and started fighting back. You really think that your soldiers are courageous, and I will agree to that when they face other equal armies. But I as well as billions of humans see them as cowards when they start to fight civilian populations (Felloujah, for example, although the whole of Afghanistan will be a much worst example) with all their military might and inflict very heavy losses on them. They had to adjust and ...well, they have started sniping too, with a very big success rate, I would even go farther and say that if there was any game changer to the invasion of Iraq it was the snipers.
As you can see by yourself, Muslims are not shy of death when they fight righteously. And if courage can be measured somehow, one has only to watch the real time documentaries about felloujah's civilians (as a good example, amongst hundreds and thousands of Iraqi cities and villages) facing the mightiest of the mighty armies of this world at this time.
The same has happened in Muslim Afghanistan!
In Iran's case, things are much worst for an invasion or an attack, it has both a mighty regular army, plus the IRGC, plus the mighty 10 to 20 million strong Basij force, it is very mountainous and pretty much well armed. It seeks peace and independence, but will be a very damaging foe in war, since all those threats of "all options are on the table including armed conflict" are very serious threats. In criminal law in Canada and the US, if someone threatens someone else with serious threats like that, he can face criminal charges... But neither the US nor Canada will apply the same rules of conduct in international law and affairs??????????
I know from facts that the US held the Iranian nation in very high regards militarily during the cold war era, and called it the Gendarme of the Middle East, because it knew that it was the only nation out there that could contain a soviet invasion in that area. Iran today is much more powerful than in those days and the US knows very well that today's Iran can also contain an American invasion or any kind of attack...

The Mock aircraft was about the structure of the AC's. They did not want to sink it but mainly exercised on paralyzing it and taking it as a prize of war...

 

[C130]

Mr @gambit.
You are talking about a regime that has overthrown a friendly regime of yours that did not work quite well for the Iranians, but maybe quite well for the US global strategy. You are still making the same mistake all over the planet with your "friends". One has only to look at all of your friends, less the oil rich ones (and still...) who live well under your influence!?
I have nothing against your patriotism, you are entitled to it. But please spare us the fiction. You know like the majority of us knows that The US could in no way win the WW2 in Europe without the USSR, let alone in the Pacific against Japan and the use of nuclear weapons!!!!!?
The Vietnam war was a catastrophic event for France then for the US, Korean war is another instance...
In Iraq, without regional allies and bases, the US on its own had no chance of waging, let alone winning a war, So the whole thing had to be staged to scare the Sheiks to the core of their souls, i.e,: the loss of their money, oil and status, to accuse Iraq of possessing WMDs to enhance the scare, and smoothen the crusade like invasion covered by the same ignorant and greedy sheiks, all of it on behalf of your GOD Usrael (I can not find any other expression to describe it in reality, since the only one to whom we as Muslims will surrender our riches, faiths, souls and lives is The real GOD, the creator of heaven and earth).
You could fool the Iraqis who in my own opinion, were living a million time better than today, to believe in you, but that did not last for more than a couple of months, when they have your intentions exposed and started fighting back. You really think that your soldiers are courageous, and I will agree to that when they face other equal armies. But I as well as billions of humans see them as cowards when they start to fight civilian populations (Felloujah, for example, although the whole of Afghanistan will be a much worst example) with all their military might and inflict very heavy losses on them. They had to adjust and ...well, they have started sniping too, with a very big success rate, I would even go farther and say that if there was any game changer to the invasion of Iraq it was the snipers.
As you can see by yourself, Muslims are not shy of death when they fight righteously. And if courage can be measured somehow, one has only to watch the real time documentaries about felloujah's civilians (as a good example, amongst hundreds and thousands of Iraqi cities and villages) facing the mightiest of the mighty armies of this world at this time.
The same has happened in Muslim Afghanistan!
In Iran's case, things are much worst for an invasion or an attack, it has both a mighty regular army, plus the IRGC, plus the mighty 10 to 20 million strong Basij force, it is very mountainous and pretty much well armed. It seeks peace and independence, but will be a very damaging foe in war, since all those threats of "all options are on the table including armed conflict" are very serious threats. In criminal law in Canada and the US, if someone threatens someone else with serious threats like that, he can face criminal charges... But neither the US nor Canada will apply the same rules of conduct in international law and affairs??????????
I know from facts that the US held the Iranian nation in very high regards militarily during the cold war era, and called it the Gendarme of the Middle East, because it knew that it was the only nation out there that could contain a soviet invasion in that area. Iran today is much more powerful than in those days and the US knows very well that today's Iran can also contain an American invasion or any kind of attack...

The Mock aircraft was about the structure of the AC's. They did not want to sink it but mainly exercised on paralyzing it and taking it as a prize of war...

he Mock aircraft was about the structure of the AC's. They did not want to sink it but mainly exercised on paralyzing it and taking it as a prize of war..


lol, sounds like something straight out of Mission Impossible.
is this implying Iran would sink/disable the entire carrier battle group?


i'd nuke the disabled carrier if it ever got to that point. only trophy you'll be getting is a suntan and a dose of radiation.

 

[The SC]

he Mock aircraft was about the structure of the AC's. They did not want to sink it but mainly exercised on paralyzing it and taking it as a prize of war..


lol, sounds like something straight out of Mission Impossible.
is this implying Iran would sink/disable the entire carrier battle group?


i'd nuke the disabled carrier if it ever got to that point. only trophy you'll be getting is a suntan and a dose of radiation.

According to the American wargames (2002), yes they can destroy a whole battle group and seize most of it, In today's world facts, it is worst for the US, since most, if not all of the Iranian small boats are armed with missiles which they did not have than...
Remember this is a closed environement, not open sea.

According to the American wargames (2002), yes they can destroy a whole battle group and seize most of it, In today's world facts, it is worst for the US, since most, if not all of the Iranian small boats are armed with missiles which they did not have than...
Remember this is a closed environement, not open sea.

About the nuke thing. You will then lose all your friends in the region and most probably in the entire world. The strait of Hormuz will be closed to navigation, and all the oil will be radioctive, that will facilitate getting radio active material to the US mainland, be it Oil, products or even humans (your friends) going to visit.

 

[C130]

According to the American wargames (2002), yes they can destroy a whole battle group and seize most of it, In today's world facts, it is worst for the US, since most, if not all of the Iranian small boats are armed with missiles which they did not have than...
Remember this is a closed environement, not open sea.


About the nuke thing. You will then lose all your friends in the region and most probably in the entire world. The strait of Hormuz will be closed to navigation, and all the oil will be radioctive, that will facilitate getting radio active material to the US mainland, beit Oil, products or even humans (your friends) going to visit.

a wargame in 2002. a pre 2002 thinking and stratagem. you can throw that out as old data. it's not wise for Iran to show it's hand.

and this assuming the CBG would be in the Hormuz Strait right??? got plenty of bases all around Iran and long range bombers and Ohio subs that have 156 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

you just don't know what our strategy could be to defeat Iran, but hopefully it never comes to that.

 

[Wisdom]

a wargame in 2002. a pre 2002 thinking and stratagem. you can throw that out as old data. it's not wise for Iran to show it's hand.

and this assuming the CBG would be in the Hormuz Strait right??? got plenty of bases all around Iran and long range bombers and Ohio subs that have 156 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

you just don't know what our strategy could be to defeat Iran, but hopefully it never comes to that.

USA can't take on Iran, Iranians know it and so does Pentagon, hence 10 years talk of war, but not a wrong look in Iran's direction. USA tip toes in the Middle East just not to piss off Iran. Not even dares to attack Syria, just because Iran may get involved. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[C130]

USA can't take on Iran, Iranians know it and so does Pentagon, hence 10 years talk of war, but not a wrong look in Iran's direction. USA tip toes in the Middle East just not to piss off Iran. Not even dares to attack Syria, just because Iran may get involved. Wake up and smell the coffee.

can't take Iran?? more like do not want another war.
think we're all tied of the Afghan/Iraq war.
we've done plenty of damage. now the fallout will effect Iran and the region.

 

[haman10]

Some of them are begging German masters to clean their toilets to make some pennies, what do you expect?

lol