fitpOsitive
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 12,933
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Dear iran, just press the button. We will see who dares to come forward...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, maybe it's a cost analysis issue? I mean if that's all a 5 million dollar missile with a 500 kg warhead can do, it's not surprising that Russia hasn't invested much in their non-nuclear B/C missiles.That's kinda like dealing with a runway, it can always be repaired eventually, although they should be using Ballistic to create big craters.
They can still truck them over the border, so I am not sure what they can really do about that, besides attacking any warehouse they can find.
Problem with Russia seems to be they do not have any ballistic missiles that are non-nuclear with a long range beyond the Iskanders, Repeated bombing of the main border roads, and railways would cause large craters that are difficult to repair, that Kalibrs don't do. Your picture pretty much proves it. And they don't have the right tools for the job frankly. Another major oversight.
What would repeated Emad strikes do?
That's kinda like dealing with a runway, it can always be repaired eventually, although they should be using Ballistic to create big craters.
They can still truck them over the border, so I am not sure what they can really do about that, besides attacking any warehouse they can find.
Problem with Russia seems to be they do not have any ballistic missiles that are non-nuclear with a long range beyond the Iskanders, Repeated bombing of the main border roads, and railways would cause large craters that are difficult to repair, that Kalibrs don't do. Your picture pretty much proves it. And they don't have the right tools for the job frankly. Another major oversight.
What would repeated Emad strikes do?
Are you afraid of quoting me, Salar jan?
1) It is not about the Ukrainian Air Force.
Russia's lack of air superiority has allowed Ukraine to import huge amounts of weapons from NATO. If Russia had established air superiority over Ukraine, NATO wouldn't have been able to arm Ukraine in this extent. It's not like Russia has not tried to cut Ukraine's arms transfers. They just have failed in doing so.
2) The US sees no reason to attack Iran.
Needless to say, that the US is fully capable of imposing huge damage on Iran's vital infrastructure.
It took the US only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump "you can't do a damn thing" to assassinate Iran's most respected and highest ranking general, namely General Soleimani for which Iran has not been able to come up with a proper response even 3 years later.
I'm purely speaking on hypotheticals, obviously we have many issues that need to be dealt with, especially regarding inventory and economy, but within this case, Russia doesn't have a long range non-nuclear BM and it's quite bad, as China and the US are aspiring for these systems.Repeat Emad strikes would probably work fine, but at what cost? I'm thinking about a war that lasts for months and we all know that in such a scenario, their first priority will be to completely shut down the already fragile Iranian economy.
Search for Tobacco protest Iran.If we are to believe radical religious people here on the forum, when the supreme leader makes a fatwa then that's it, there is nothing that could be done anymore and that the fatwa is real and there to stay.
We have also people saying that this could be a wartime deception tactic and perfectly legal according to the islamic rules of warfare. Now which is it? I am leaning on the first option, that is more believable and typical of how the supreme leader acts in the strategic and political/religious sphere.
But perhaps his opinion will change if mainland of Iran is attacked (Iraq shock and awe style). They seem to be happy with the current situation as long there is no huge war waged on the mainland.
You have already taken a picture of my post which very well explains why I am saying that and then you move on to overlook it. I hear a lot that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our enemies at the beginning of the war, probably thinking about a scenario similar to the 6 day war, concluding we don't have to worry about their air forces destroying a large part of our vital military and civilian infrastructure. It seems not to be true when you look at the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. If Russia hasn't been able to do that to a weak Ukraine, why do you think Iran will be able to do it to countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Both countries are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war.View attachment 864402
Copying and pasting a message bit by bit is tedious. But so be it.
It partially was in your initial post:
View attachment 864401
In a war between Iran and the USA or some potent regional player, it will all be about neutralizing their air power from the very outset.
Air superiority doesn't offer a magical solution in this regard.
Of course it does. Much more than it saw reason to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and others like Syria through proxies.
Not at a politically (if not economically) bearable cost.
Assassinating a general is thoroughly incomparable to wreaking havoc on nationwide infrastructure, let alone to bringing about the effective destruction and territorial disintegration of a nation-state - which is what Iran has successfully deterred the US regime from accomplishing. A general no matter how charismatic, competent and influential will be replaced (and not necessarily by a single person) as long as the system under which he has been operating is left intact. And in Islamic Iran's case, the system is entirely unscathed.
More to the point, Iran's regionwide network of alliances - shahid Soleimani's primary area of responsibility, is not only as solid as it used to be, but gained in strength since January 2020.
In short, the assassination did not result in any concrete achievement for the US regime on the ground. Iran's geostrategic standing was not affected. Washington merely scored a temporary psy-ops point, nothing more.
My only concern is inventory. Rate of fire would be high, inventory depleted fast.You have already taken a picture of my post which very well explains why I am saying that and then you move on to overlook it. I hear a lot that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our enemies at the beginning of the war, probably thinking about a scenario similar to the 6 day war, concluding we don't have to worry about their air forces destroying a large part of our vital military and civilian infrastructure. It seems not to be true when you look at the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. If Russia hasn't been able to do that to a weak Ukraine, why do you think Iran will be able to do it to countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Both countries are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war.
You have to understand that a full invasion of Iran is very costly due to many factors, including the terrain and large young population, and it can backlash which is why they are not willing to attempt it. However, given proper motivation, the US can actually destroy Iran's vital infrastructure. One should never underestimate the military power and the stupidity of the American presidents. Trump is still much less psychopathic compared to the likes of Pompeo or Bolton, or many other hawks in the US system and it seems almost certain, with the general dissatisfaction with Biden, that the next president of the US will be someone like Trump or worse.
Assassination of General Soleimani, only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump that Iran would do whatever it wants and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, was a huge victory for the US. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively can see it. Also, unlike what you say, Iran's influence in Iraq has been declining since the assassination of General Soleimani.
I am not trying to come across as rude, but I dont understand why certain Iranian members like to claim that Iran does not need to have a modern air force since it has lots of ballistic missiles and UCAV's. You still need a air force.
China with the largest conventional missile force in the world is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on its air force. If you can have a strong air force+large ballistic missile/UCAV inventory why not?
Which is why Iran needs unconventional capabilities to properly defend itself against regional/global adversaries.My only concern is inventory. Rate of fire would be high, inventory depleted fast.
UAV's are the only follow up, but a strong enemy airforce would deny these UAVs if they are still in tact, or if they are not intact, they can be resupplied by others. Stockpile needs to be large enough to deny it completely, and for that to work, you'd need money, and an economy both of which are Iran's weakpoints.
Yes would be interesting to see.Which is why Iran needs unconventional capabilities to properly defend itself against regional/global adversaries.
If the news about Iran delivering 300 drones to Russia turns out to be true, we will be able to test many of our theories in practice.
Yes would be interesting to see.
Nuclear militarization makes sense in this context.
We saw from latest Sat images of missiles bases, Iran is building a very safe, and very aggressive offensive BM fires capability, probably not seen anywhere else in the world. Quite a achievement, but say you fire 350 BMs near simultaneously. How quickly will this stockpile be used. Quite fast.I think you'd need something like 20,000 Qiams and Emads to have a solid inventory, which is pretty hard to see.
I hear a lot that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our enemies at the beginning of the war, probably thinking about a scenario similar to the 6 day war, concluding we don't have to worry about their air forces destroying a large part of our vital military and civilian infrastructure. It seems not to be true when you look at the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. If Russia hasn't been able to do that to a weak Ukraine, why do you think Iran will be able to do it to countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Both countries are better equipped than Ukraine was at the beginning of the war.
You have to understand that a full invasion of Iran is very costly due to many factors, including the terrain and large young population, and it can backlash which is why they are not willing to attempt it. However, given proper motivation, the US can actually destroy Iran's vital infrastructure. One should never underestimate the military power and the stupidity of the American presidents. Trump is still much less psychopathic compared to the likes of Pompeo or Bolton, or many other hawks in the US system and it seems almost certain, with the general dissatisfaction with Biden, that the next president of the US will be someone like Trump or worse.
Assassination of General Soleimani, only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump that Iran would do whatever it wants and they couldn't do a damn thing about it, was a huge victory for the US. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively can see it. Also, unlike what you say, Iran's influence in Iraq has been declining since the assassination of General Soleimani.
days, Week !!? that's 3-4 hours of work maybe even lessI mean look at what little damage a Russia caliber missile did to the Zatoka bridge in Odessa, for example.
Or another photo that is apparently from a Ukrainian railway hit by a Kalibr missile. This is not something that can't be repaired in a few days/weeks and it's quite disappointing for a missile that can deliver a 500 kg warhead and costs over $5 million.
Salar nobody claim iran must reduce its investment in missile or drone force. we say they must prioratize the money better.Truth is, had Iran actually diverted large sums of money towards her air force and away from missile and air defence procurement, today she'd be in a state worse than Syria (as highlighted by PeeD as well). For the USA such a reorientation of the Iranian defense posture would be a dream come true. They wouldn't hesitate to initiate some major military aggression if Iran's defense had shifted more towards air power. For a country like Iran (and say, Pakistan if she was in an existential type of confrontation against the USA regime), there's simply no other option than full fledged asymmetry if effective deterrence is to be achieved against an enemy with access to overwhelming resources.