Iranian Space program

[TheImmortal]

Turkey has access to other countries' launch systems is a better way to phrase it, we still make our own satellites. And already SpaceX is so cheap so currently there are no issues.

Yes, however, if Turkey ever falls out of favor with west it will lose access to such systems. Again unlikely considering Turkey is NATO. But stranger things have happened in world history.

But still, it doesn't justify the lax attitude. of Turkey's space program. The government just doesn't give a shit and it's embarrassing.

LIRA is 20+ to the dollar. Space programs are VERY expensive. I don’t think Turkey has the luxury of wasting billions of dollars at this time to have a space capability that doesn’t advance its security by a whole lot. Future can be different once economic conditions improve.

As for ballistic missiles, how many BMs did Russia throw at Ukraine?

Russia is a nuclear based BM power. Its BMs are designed for delivering nuclear payloads not pinpoint precision. Its tactical missiles are compromised mostly of Iskander which is good for hitting fixed targets. It did its job, however, its enemy is right next door so the value doesn’t go far. Furthermore, Russian firepower is built around artillery and fighter jets not missile centric doctrine. Missiles are to ensure MAD.

BMs excel at hitting at colonial aggressors (US) who have to come from far away lands or hitting distant enemies without risking aircraft (Israel). That’s where the real value lies.

It hasn't been very effective, and it's very, very expensive. Don't get me wrong it's nice to have the option for shock & awe purposes but aside from that, number of targets in a country that justify BM strikes is very, very low.

Iskander isn’t that expensive to build. Israeli LORA cost $300K to foreign buyers so likely israel builds it less than $200K and that’s a “western military cost”.

More expensive to do a bombing run with F-35’s ($/hr) than it is to fire Islanders. Modern fighter jets cost $10,000+ per hour of operation + maintenance + cost of payload + pilot lives at risk.

Can you think of a target in Iran so important that if it got hit it would cripple the country?

Al-Assad missile attack did over $300M in damages using older (pre 2010) BM technology. That is with the enemy being warned in advance and moving out most of their tech:

5-6 missiles that cost maybe combined less than ~$2M. For comparison that is less than the single cost of loaded TB2 drone.

Buildings, runways, power plants etc. Can all be repaired probably much cheaper than the ballistic missile thrown at them.

Power plants cost billions of dollars (depending on size). An Iranian tactical BM at most cost $300K considering an Israeli LORA cost $300K on open market (not production cost).

 

[LegionnairE]

Al-Assad missile attack did over $300M in damages using older (pre 2010) BM technology. That is with the enemy being warned in advance and moving out most of their tech:

5-6 missiles that cost maybe combined less than ~$2M. For comparison that is less than the single cost of loaded TB2 drone.

This is perfect example of a strategic target

Yeah if you pick your targets well, you can get a lot of value from relatively short range BMs, the problem is, in a war scenario you will run out of such targets very quickly and after that you start getting diminishing returns.

Right now Russia is hitting Ukrainian grain shipments, what use is this?

 

[HGV]

A reminder that this thread is about the "Iranian Space program"

 

[LegionnairE]

Power plants cost billions of dollars (depending on size). An Iranian tactical BM at most cost $300K considering an Israeli LORA cost $300K on open market (not production cost).

Yeah well, it didn't seem to do much in Ukraine's case. They were repaired rather quickly.

 

[Blue In Green]

What argument are you trying to win by saying this?

This strategy works against countries that aren't supported by NATO?



The country with the world's biggest military budget, USA, looked at what's happening in Ukraine and realized they don't have nearly enough 155mm shells.

I don't think you quite realize the severity of the situation here.

Fucking USA, is afraid they don't have enough 155mm shells but Iran is somehow confident that they have enough ballistic missiles for any scenario.



Let me tell you something even funnier. Turkish Air Force has around 240 operational F16s and we're basically begging USA to buy 30 more of them.

Iran is set to receive 30 brand new state of the art Su-35s, 4+ generation fighters that are way beyond anything IRIAF has and the Iranians reaction is "meh... we don't really need them but whatever... can we put Fakour on this thing?"





Maybe, but a small country also has a very small airspace to defend, just a few batteries of long range SAMs here and there and the whole country is covered lol.

@jauk

I don't think Iran figured out anything other than economy of scale and cheap labor, even then ballistic missiles are expensive systems.

My operating theory is that Iranian military leadership is throwing IRIAF a bone like saying “Here, we got you some modern aircraft, now can you please shut up for awhile”. Other militaries, especially regionally have long term plans for their respective AirForces, Iran doesn’t or at least it seems that way.

Unless future endeavors have in mind the gainful acquisition of 5th-Gen aircraft and beyond. Iran will continue to play second fiddle to everyone in the region. I’m hoping Iran goes all-in on advanced stealth UAVS with significant combat capabilities but that’s way easier said than done and that’s not exactly an answer to current woes.

On the topic of BMs and 155mm shells. I think intent of use for said munitions is important here. Clearly Iran won’t be firing missiles like one would an artillery shell with tens of thousands being launched in a day but current stocks can support truly massive amounts of launches. Scope of operations is important here. Again, combat doctrine matters and the Americans (West really) have supply chain issues when it comes to production of munitions as we’ve seen with the War In Ukraine putting immense strain on their supplies. US armed forces are not a missile force. They have them but they don’t rely on Ballistic Missiles as a stand in for conventional counter threat systems. Instead a robust Airforce and Navy is used first and foremost. Iran just doesn’t have that luxury so they went all-in on BMs, Drones and AD.

 

[TheImmortal]

Yeah if you pick your targets well, you can get a lot of value from relatively short range BMs, the problem is, in a war scenario you will run out of such targets very quickly and after that you start getting diminishing returns.

After you run out of targets your opponents capability has severely diminished. BMs don’t help to win a major land war (Ukraine). Just like AirPower cannot win a war all by itself. You need boots on the ground.

But a land invasion of Iran is near politically and logistically impossible. Iran knows this. Saddam couldn’t do it with 700,000 soldiers. Its terrain is brutal and its major cities are located near or in mountains. A logistical nightmare for an invading force. US would need 1M+ soldiers to secure Iraq and Iran. In military academy, it is taught that Usually the invading force has to bring 3x the army as the defending force. So even if Iran musters a mere 500,000 soldiers, US would need to muster at least 1M, but closer to 1.5M to secure faster victory and avoid a war of attrition (see Russia in Ukraine).

The point is BMs are an Area Denial weapon. If Iran hits major oil terminals, airbases, ammo depots, command and control centers, bridges, power plants, etc. then by the time a ceasefire is agreed it will blunt your opponent from achieving his objectives. There is a finite number of US bases in Middle East and even smaller amount of Israeli military bases.

 

[Blue In Green]

After you run out of targets your opponents capability has severely diminished. BMs don’t help to win a major land war (Ukraine). Just like AirPower cannot win a war all by itself. You need boots on the ground.

But a land invasion of Iran is near politically and logistically impossible. Iran knows this. Saddam couldn’t do it with 700,000 soldiers. Its terrain is brutal and its major cities are located near or in mountains. A logistical nightmare for an invading force. US would need 1M+ soldiers to secure Iraq and Iran. In military academy, it is taught that Usually the invading force has to bring 3x the army as the defending force. So even if Iran musters a mere 500,000 soldiers, US would need to muster at least 1M, but closer to 1.5M to secure faster victory and avoid a war of attrition (see Russia in Ukraine).

The point is BMs are an Area Denial weapon. If Iran hits major oil terminals, airbases, ammo depots, command and control centers, bridges, power plants, etc. then by the time a ceasefire is agreed it will blunt your opponent from achieving his objectives. There is a finite number of US bases in Middle East and even smaller amount of Israeli military bases.

Excellent point, the type of conflict that Iran would be engaged in is fundamentally different from the war that’s being fought in Ukraine. Bad comparison really.

It’ll most likely be a long-range-fires type of war with little to no boots on the ground. Maybe an operational takeover of Iranian controlled Islands in the Persian Gulf could take place but given what happened to “Snake Island”. I doubt enemy forces would willingly move men and equipment into an area that falls well under Irans missile umbrella.

 

[LegionnairE]

After you run out of targets your opponents capability has severely diminished. BMs don’t help to win a major land war (Ukraine). Just like AirPower cannot win a war all by itself. You need boots on the ground.

But a land invasion of Iran is near politically and logistically impossible. Iran knows this. Saddam couldn’t do it with 700,000 soldiers. Its terrain is brutal and its major cities are located near or in mountains. A logistical nightmare for an invading force. US would need 1M+ soldiers to secure Iraq and Iran. In military academy, it is taught that Usually the invading force has to bring 3x the army as the defending force. So even if Iran musters a mere 500,000 soldiers, US would need to muster at least 1M, but closer to 1.5M to secure faster victory and avoid a war of attrition (see Russia in Ukraine).

The point is BMs are an Area Denial weapon. If Iran hits major oil terminals, airbases, ammo depots, command and control centers, bridges, power plants, etc. then by the time a ceasefire is agreed it will blunt your opponent from achieving his objectives. There is a finite number of US bases in Middle East and even smaller amount of Israeli military bases.

Air power and BMs aren't comparable. When you have air superiority over an area, let's say you have a couple of squadrons of F-16s operating there, you own the skies above, you can do anything, your bigger, heavier bombers or UAVs such as Aksungur and Akıncı can strike anything with impunity. Moving targets, static targets deosn't matter. And you're dropping laser guided bombs which basically cost nothing.

With BMs you can hit large static targets maybe if you know their location. And the target hasn't moved since you acquired the intel, the intel made its way through the ranks, the commanders in charge approve the attack, and the missile is prepared and fired.

With air power you have hundreds of eyes in the sky, you see something, you kill it in a matter of seconds.

And sure, Karabakh was very mountainous, it is a nightmare to navigate around the natural obstacles and the Armenian army was heavily dug in inside those mountains for decades. We all know what happened.

And the Iran Iraq war is really a david & goliath story. Iraq is a much smaller country by population, by landmass, resources, everything. It is quite remarkable that they were able to fight Iran to basically a stalemate.

IF they were able to annex some territorry too, it would be comedic.

 

[glablo]

In the Iran-Iraq war, Iran was under a blockade from the entire world despite the fact that it was the victim of an invasion.
Iraq, on the other hand, exactly like Ukraine today, received enormous financial aid and arms grants with the full support of the West and Arab countries, and was by far the largest arms importer in the world.
A large amount of weapons flowed in from the opposing camps of Europe and the Soviet Union, France built an air defense system, and Germany supported Iraq in various fields, including the construction of bases.
The Arab nations and the United States provided enormous financial support to build up the Iraqi army, and the United States even helped develop chemical weapons, which were actually used against the Iranian army.
Iran was practically the only country at the time that could have countered an invasion by dozens of countries around the world that were relentless in their use of chemical weapons and even criminal weapons of mass destruction.

 

[HGV]

And the Iran Iraq war is really a david & goliath story. Iraq is a much smaller country by population, by landmass, resources, everything. It is quite remarkable that they were able to fight Iran to basically a stalemate.

IF they were able to annex some territorry too, it would be comedic.

Go back to your watermelon stall, dirty torkhe khar

 

[LegionnairE]

In the Iran-Iraq war, Iran was under a blockade from the entire world despite the fact that it was the victim of an invasion.
Iraq, on the other hand, exactly like Ukraine today, received enormous financial aid and arms grants with the full support of the West and Arab countries, and was by far the largest arms importer in the world.
A large amount of weapons flowed in from the opposing camps of Europe and the Soviet Union, France built an air defense system, and Germany supported Iraq in various fields, including the construction of bases.
The Arab nations and the United States provided enormous financial support to build up the Iraqi army, and the United States even helped develop chemical weapons, which were actually used against the Iranian army.
Iran was practically the only country at the time that could have countered an invasion by dozens of countries around the world that were relentless in their use of chemical weapons and even criminal weapons of mass destruction.

It is fucking Iraq.

 

[LegionnairE]

Go back to your watermelon stall, dirty torkhe khar

I don't speak the language of lower primates

 

[Blue In Green]

It is fucking Iraq.

That “fucking Iraq” had support to the tunes of billions of dollars of foreign aid and military assistance down to even ISR.

Iran was quite literally fighting a war on its own with the exception of a few countries that gave some assistance here and there.

 

[LegionnairE]

That “fucking Iraq” had support to the tunes of billions of dollars of foreign aid and military assistance down to even ISR.

Iran was quite literally fighting a war on its own with the exception of a few countries that gave some assistance here and there.

Kek It's like me boasting about how Turkey defeated Cyprus


Watch how a competent army deals with Iraq

 

[tsunset]

That “fucking Iraq” had support to the tunes of billions of dollars of foreign aid and military assistance down to even ISR.

Iran was quite literally fighting a war on its own with the exception of a few countries that gave some assistance here and there.

And furniture of WMDs, the depth of the aid given to Iraq that time surpasses any international laws:

- Western germany helps Iraq making their Saddam Scuds not only carry WMDs, but also elevate their range from 400km (i think) to 600km, to reach Tehran with a WMD payload

- Never seen in history, trade of WMDs from signatory of the treaty concerning chemical weapons (West), to another country (Iraq) that itself signed this act, used on a country (Iran), that itself signed this act

- Help on manufacturing various chemicals to be used (with the help of westerns sats) behind Iranian troops, so that those that would retreat would see a horrendous surprise followed by death

- It is not "fucking Iraq", USA was also into the war, both on ground, sea, air and space, violating Iranian waters, shutting down airliner with murky excuses, struck Iranian warships, possible practice of cannibalism and torture on POWs, if this is not enough to say that USA was at war with Iran (destroying a ship, an airliner, offshore oil spaces, providing WMDs) then i don't know what is considered as a declaration of war

PS: This guy is obviously trolling and i don't know why we suddenly see many users from Turkiye since last week clashing here about subjects talked a million times and both sides flexing on who is the best