IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Beny Karachun]

21 of those 52 recieved enough damage to be pulled out of battle 5 deemed repairable (2 Merkavas MkII, 1 Merkava MkIII, 2 Merkavas MkIV).

Unrepairable*

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

It's not just about pumping money in, there has to be some worthwhile ToT and willingness from the other side to sell. Cant just keep blaming akhoond everytime. Also without the IRGC Iran would be the 51st state of US. Show some respect!

Ah, my apologies. I meant to say the people running the IRIAF not IRGC.

I'll make the edit now.

 

[Hack-Hook]

He is a professional hasbara troll just like 500

90% of their posts are extremely anti Iranian/resistance axis and pro Israheli

I am sure your butt is still burning from 2006

@SalarHaqq @BlessedKingOfLonging You're talking to a hasbara troll @Hack-Hook

I was briefly on the IDF and IMF forums in the past. He's a veteran user who was always critical and somewhat cynical.

Is he a traitor, though? A part of me thinks yes and the other part says he's frustrated in life and this results in him projecting his misery everywhere, including making damning statements that you'd normally hear from enemies (may they be cuckolded and their penises shrink in size).

just prove me wrong. i put forward the data , not resort to insulting anybody who has different view than you.
just provide the data that show me wrong

 

[SalarHaqq]

the fact hezbollah don\t have the infrastructure to use them

No proof for that. Furthermore Hezbollah will not take delivery of an asset without the capability to utilize it, or without realistic plans to acquire said capability.

not important for them as it actually in effect and they are using Caspian sea resources according to it and Iran do nothing about it . the effect is the same as if Iran ratify it

Iran was attributed a larger share of the Caspian territorial waters than the percentage of her actual coastline.

show me proof from Hezbollah
when your situation become hard and knew you are wrong you say that

The opposite is the case: your lack of persuasive arguments is compelling you to reference zionist propaganda. In addition to this habit of inverting the burden of proof.

in 2006 370 thank deployed from them 52 hit by atgm , RPG and IEDs . 21 of those 52 recieved enough damage to be pulled out of battle 5 deemed repairable (2 Merkavas MkII, 1 Merkava MkIII, 2 Merkavas MkIV).
One of the destroyed MkII and one of the destroyed MkIV were hit by IEDs, the rest were lost due to ATGM fire. by the way during the war 18 Merkava MK4 was hit by ATGM and only one destroyed with no death to the troop inside , the other destroyed MK-4 was hit by an IED and in that case there was loss of troop
this is the one that destroyed by IED , you can guess how much explossive used

by the way that was 2006 , after that they reinforced their tanks in 2014 non of the atgm fired by Palestinian could penetrate the tanks

It's not necessary to kill the crews or disintegrate a tank into tiny pieces: the tank has to be incapacitated in such a way that it can't be repaired on short notice, and will thus be counted as a de facto loss during the battle or the entire war.

The mishmash of data you copy/pasted is leaving out how many of those 18 tanks they claim were hit by ATGM's, were pulled out of service for the duration of the battle, which is what counts most.

Then again, you're treating zionist-published figures as unquestionable fact.

thats the official report , if you have any evidence contrary to that . i be glad to see it . that will be reassuring to me because in future our allies and troops must face those tanks again and i hope they be prepared for them
you knew after 2006 they added extra belly armor to those tanks

No, the question is why you're taking a zionist "official report" at face value when it's common knowledge that every information released by Tel Aviv is subject to military censorship, and that this regime has a long history of covering up probable losses - including in recent cases of retaliatory assassinations attributed to Iran, which you yourself have treated as factual in other discussions at this forum, despite the lack of real hard evidence (and I actually agree with it, just that the same logic ought to be applied to the case at hand) .

So I don't need to produce proof to the contrary, because the information you offered is by definition anything but trustworthy.

Let us nonetheless put to rest the attempted downplaying of Hezbollah's military achievement, thanks to the citation of more credible numbers straight from the horse's mouth:

Moreover, the Hizbollah scored several clear victories over Israel’s military. According to an IDF Report Card published in the Jerusalem Post, Israel had deployed some 400 Merkava MK-4 tanks – its safest and deadliest tank – in Lebanon: 40 of these were hit by Hizbollah’s anti-tank weapons, 20 of them were destroyed, and 30 tank crewmen were killed.[10] According to a report published by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “Hizbollah’s success with antitank weapons during the July War reflects many years spent training on these weapons as well as a good plan to use these weapons once the battle began.”

A Paradigm Shift: How Hizbollah Won the War - Palestine Chronicle

By M. Shahid Alam On January 31, 2008, when the Winograd Commission submitted its final report on the Second Lebanese War of July 2006, this was a first in Israeli history: a report on why [...]

www.palestinechronicle.com

When zionists publish contradicting figures of their losses, we should pick whichever ones present the zionist military in a better light, is that what you're saying? This is while even the numbers right above could be minimizing the true extent of damage sustained by Merkava tanks as a consequence of Kornet ATGM impacts.

they added trophy to the tanks

that goes your wonder kornets

You're treating zionist-made systems as "wonder weapons" while dismissing the efficiency of Russian-made ones. Don't be surprised then if readers consider this as a reflection of political preferences.

lesson from something they didn't had access to and was designed for another scenario . as always you never stop belittling Iranian achievement and glorifying Russian ones

https://natoassociation.ca/irans-developing-military-capabilities-part-iv-air-defences-section-ii/

Iran is likely to have had access to the Nebo radar and other components used in the S-300 since the late 1990's or early 2000's, courtesy of a Croatian private arms dealer and more importantly, of what was surely a Russian front company in Belarus. Either way, Belarus will not export any high tier weaponry against Moscow's will.

To state that Iran's access to token samples of foreign systems gave a boost to Iran's domestic R&D and manufacturing is not belittling at all. Even China's defence industry was initially relying a lot on reverse-engineering, and it continually benefited over the years from the study of Russian and other weaponry Beijing was purchasing.

As a matter of fact, very few countries in the world are capable of this, so your accusation against me has no ground to stand on.

Not to mention how rich it is to be accused of minimizing Iran's domestic achievements by a staunch supporter of the reformist faction, the same faction which is openly professing its ideological disdain and opposition to the concept of self-sufficiency.

and iran didn't see any benefit from russia on this regard to put order there , we already could produce our radars

Strawman. I was responding to your question about the date on which Russia supplied Iran with a radar, which Iran had indeed placed an order for. Now you're talking about stuff Iran did not order.

yeah atgm and AK-103 according to you .what iran get and needed was in late 90s and early 2000 after that russia rarely gave us anything and what they gave us were not significant at all

That would be a lie (at this point it can hardly be a careless mistake) for I cited more than ATGM's and AK-103 rifles.

You were implying some of the radar systems Iran purchased from Russia were useless. This would mean Iranian decision makers are idiotic and need your advice on what to order from Russia and what not. Which, needless to say, would be a ludicrous thing to assume.

If Russian supplies to Iran diminished after the early 2000's, that's because Iran's local defence industry had evolved to the point that it could engage in serial production of more hi-tech systems. Not because of some sudden u-turn by Russia.

all we builtwas due to hard work of our scientist and what we could get our hands on around the middle-east

...and from reverse-engineering and studying weaponry obtained from Russia and China as well.

again trying to hide the defects in Russian equipment
the cause was clear the sam re-positioned there , the operator forget to set new north south axis and the sam itself could not point to that as a result the operator taught the airplane come from the opposite direction . there are many report on that .

There's no technically detailed, professional report from Iran. And key word here is the operator forgot to perform a key setting. Congrats, you just blatantly proved your own assertion wrong: this is not called defective device, but human error.

The Tor series are a powerful and valuable air defence system by all serious accounts. Any attempt to suggest they will randomly misfire due to built-in flaws in their hardware is clownish, sorry to say. No serious military analyst would make such a claim, as it represents gutter press level propaganda.

we field s-200 , we field s-125 , we field hawk , ..... we field F-7 and toothless F-1
the reason we field it is because we have it . its inferior to 15th khordad, 3th khordad and Bavar-373

Iran is not operating the Pechora. The S-200 fulfills a limited niche role within the IADS, it helps deter against enemy AWACS and tanker aircraft by limiting their action radius. That's why it's not been retired yet. Not simply because "we have it".

As for the F-7 and F-1 fighter jets, they're a different pair of shoes due to the fact that the IRIAF's access to up to date airframes is much more limited than air defence forces' access to new (domestically built) SAM systems.

Simplistic blanket statements such as that the S-300PM2 with assorted S-400 components "is inferior to 15th Khordad, 3rd Khordand and Bavar-373" or vice versa make no sense and are unscientific. A correct and more factual formulation would be that the Bavar-373 offers superior performance and advantages in multiple aspects, while the custom S-300PM2 Iran received is on par if not superior in a few others. The other two SAM systems mentionned aren't in the same class.

no the shell were given to the forces in Syria not Iran and was not used in designing basir .

I never claimed they were used to design Basir. You were denying Iranian procurement of Krasnopol rounds altogether by pointing to the Basir, in a false syllogism-type of strawman argument. But one proposition does not exclude the other. Sources I provided are explicit about Russian supply of Krasnopol rounds to Iran.

yeah sure . thats why only half the system recieved

Key word received. Moreover, you were bragging about Belarus in an umpteenth attempt to deny past Russian arms sales, now you're switching to something else without acknowledging the fallacy of your initial contention, namely that most of what Belarus exported to Iran was likely the work of Russian front companies in Minsk.

But this has become a hallmark of a vain anti-Russian crusade, which in fact is more of a side-aspect to a wider, western-absolving agenda seeking to promote a revision of the Islamic Republic's principled policy of anti-imperialist Resistance. It's exactly the same modus operandi which liberal politicians in Iran are resorting to.

the system was not needed at the time and antey 2500 was not accepted because Iran have plans for bavar-373 also antey-2500 shine more in anti ballistic mode compared to pm series and Iran don't face as much threat in that regard compared to enemy aircraft .

This represents faulty logic: first you claim S-300's are completely pointless to Iran's IADS but Iran is fielding them anyway, now you counter that Iran rejected the Antey-2500 because she has no use for it. Make up your mind, either Iran has no issues fielding "useless" systems, in which case she would've gone with the S-300VM instead of pressing Russia for numerous months to deliver S-300PM's instead; or, when Iran deploys a system, it's that Iranian planners believe the system in question offers some kind of benefit. Can't have it both ways as per elementary rules of rational inference.

another case of Russian want to sabotage us, we buy something and they insist on delivering something we didn't need , 10 years late

Highly condemnable behaviour, but the notion that Russia right from the outset had an intricate secret plan to take Iran's order and then withhold delivery, is nothing but flimsy conspiracy theory. Moscow adjusted to US and zionist pressure after the deal was signed. They shouldn't have and they must be strongly criticized for it, yes. However initially there was no intention to trap Iran. Also, with the lasting deterioration of ties between Russia and the west, episodes like these are bound to become much rarer.

we sharing the enmity as much as they are our enemy we also are their enemy and will stop at nothing short of their destruction ,

That's not the point. It's about the fact that the highlighted statement of yours was suggestive of the notion that Iran is the one which initiated the enmity.

are you claiming Iran will stop being Israel enemy if tomorrow Israel say we want to be Iran friends ? do you really have such low opinion on Iran foreign policy , are you consider us so naive and fickle

I was analyzing your comment. You're the one who cited Iranian policy as explanatory of zionist hostility.

but you say we most forget what they did and abandon domestic production in favor of buying from them

What? Never made such a statement about domestic production.

I find the arguments put forth in favor of a consequent production run for Kosar fighter jets to be convincing. I'd like to see them produced in numbers indeed.

The fact that I also subscribe to PeeD's view that three or four squadrons of modern Flankers purchased from Russia would be within the boundaries of Iran's doctrine and would take some pressure off the IADS in case of a war, does not imply that I'm advocating the abandonment of any of Iran's domestic production lines.

and how i stated we must be toward Israel ? can you elaborate that and point to exact post i said that

also Only someone who doesn't properly understand what I wrote about nature of Iran and Israel relation, could possibly alter its meaning in such a way. Or perhaps an intellectually dishonest one, but I prefer to be optimistic.

you just dreaming and can never find anywhere i support them .

You're taking aim at Russia more often and more energically than what you're seen doing against the zionist regime. This is what I'm having an issue with since it's hardly in line with Iranian policy and interests now, is it.

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

The opposite is the case: your lack of persuasive arguments is compelling you to reference zionist propaganda. In addition to this habit of inverting the burden of proof.



It's not necessary to kill the crews or disintegrate a tank into tiny pieces: the tank has to be incapacitated in such a way that it can't be repaired on short notice, and will this be counted as a de facto loss during the battle or the entire war.

The mishmash of data you copy/pasted is leaving out how many of the 18 tanks hit by MBT's were pullet out of battle.

Then again, you're treating zionist-published figures as unquestionable fact. No comment!



No, the question is why you're taking a zionist "official report" at face value when it's common knowledge that every information released by Tel Aviv is subject to military censorship, and that this regime has a long history of covering up probable losses - including in recent cases of retaliatory assassinations attributed to Iran, which you yourself have described as factual in other discussions at this forum, despite the lack of real hard evidence.

So I don't need to produce proof to the contrary, because the information you offered is by definition anything but trustworthy.

Let us nonetheless put to rest this attempted downplaying of Hezbollah's military achievements, thanks to the citation of more credible numbers from the horse's mouth:

Moreover, the Hizbollah scored several clear victories over Israel’s military. According to an IDF Report Card published in the Jerusalem Post, Israel had deployed some 400 Merkava MK-4 tanks – its safest and deadliest tank – in Lebanon: 40 of these were hit by Hizbollah’s anti-tank weapons, 20 of them were destroyed, and 30 tank crewmen were killed.[10] According to a report published by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “Hizbollah’s success with antitank weapons during the July War reflects many years spent training on these weapons as well as a good plan to use these weapons once the battle began.”

A Paradigm Shift: How Hizbollah Won the War - Palestine Chronicle

By M. Shahid Alam On January 31, 2008, when the Winograd Commission submitted its final report on the Second Lebanese War of July 2006, this was a first in Israeli history: a report on why [...]

www.palestinechronicle.com

When zionists publish different contradicting figures of their losses, we should pick those that present the zionist military in a better light, is that what you're saying? This is while even the numbers right above could be minimizing the true amount of Merkava tanks desroyed or seriously damaged by Kornet ATGM's.



You're treating zionist-made systems as "wonder weapons" while dismissing the efficiency of Russian-made ones. Then don't be surprised if readers consider this as a reflection of political preferences.



View attachment 872253

https://natoassociation.ca/irans-developing-military-capabilities-part-iv-air-defences-section-ii/

Iran is likely to have had access to the Nebo radar and other components used in the S-300 since the late 1990's or early 2000's, courtesy of a Croatian private arms dealer and more importantly, of what was surely a Russian front company in Belarus. Either way, Belarus will not export any high tier weaponry against Moscow's will.

To state that Iran's access to token samples of foreign systems gave a boost to Iran's domestic R&D and manufacturing is not belittling at all. Even China's defence industry was initially relying a lot on reverse-engineering, and it continually benefited over the years from the study of Russian and other weaponry Beijing was purchasing.

As a matter of fact, very few countries in the world are capable of this, so your accusation against me has no ground to stand on.

Not to mention how rich it is to be accused of minimizing Iran's domestic achievements by a staunch supporter of the reformist faction, the same reformist faction which is openly professing its ideological disdain and opposition for the concept of self-sufficiency.



Anothe typical strawman. I was responding to your question about the date on which Russia supplied Iran with a radar which Iran had indeed placed an order for. Now you're talking about stuff Iran did not order.



That would be a lie (at this point it can hardly be a careless mistake) for I cited more than ATGM's and AK-103 rifles.

You were implying some of the radar systems Iran purchased from Russia were useless. This would mean Iranian decision makers are idiotic and need your advice on what to order from Russia and what not. Which, needless to say, would be a ludicrous thing to assume.

If Russian supplies to Iran diminished after the early 2000's, that's because Iran's local defence industry had evolved to the point that it could engage in serial production of more hi-tech systems. Not because of some sudden u-turn by Russia.



...and from reverse-engineering and studying weaponry obtained from Russia and China as well.



There's no technically detailed, professional report from Iran. And key word here is the operator forgot to perform a key setting. Congrats, you just blatantly proved your own assertion wrong: this is not called defective device, but human error.

The Tor series are a valuable air defence system by all serious accounts. Any attempt to suggest it will randomly misfire due to built-in flaws in the hardware is clownish, to put it mildly. No serious military analyst would make such a claim, as it represents gutter press level propaganda.



Iran is not fielding the Pechora. The S-200 fulfills a limited niche role within the IADS, it helps deter against enemy AWACS and tanker aircraft by limiting their freedom of movement. That's why it's not been retired yet. Not simply because "we have it".

As for the F-7 and F-1 fighter jets, they're a different pair of shoes altogether, due to the fact that the IRIAF's access to up to date airframes is much more limited than air defence forces' access to new (domestically built) SAM systems.

Simplistic blanket statements such as that the S-300PM2 with assorted S-400 components "is inferior to 15th Khordad, 3rd Khordand and Bavar-373" or vice versa make no sense and are unscientific. A correct and more factual formulation would be that the Bavar-373 offers superior performance and advantages in multiple aspects, while the custom S-300PM2 Iran received is on par if not superior in a few others. The other two SAM systems mentionned aren't in the same class.



I never claimed they were used to design Basir. You were denying Iranian procurement of Krasnopol rounds altogether by pointing to the Basir, in a false syllogism-type of strawman argument. But one proposition does not exclude the other. Sources I provided are explicit about Russian supply of Krasnopol rounds to Iran.



Key word received. Moreover, you were bragging about Belarus in an umpteenth attempt to deny past Russian arms sales, now you're switching to something else without acknowledging the fallacy of your initial contention, namely that most of what Belarus exported to Iran was likely the work of Russian front companies in Minsk.

But this has become a hallmark of your vain anti-Russian crusade, which in fact is more of a side-aspect to an overarching, western-absolving agenda seeking to promote a revision of the Islamic Republic's principled policy of anti-imperialist Resistance. It's exactly the same modus operandi which liberal politicians in Iran are resorting to.



This represents faulty logic: first you claim S-300's are completely pointless to Iran's IADS but Iran is fielding them anyway, now you counter that Iran rejected the Antey-2500 because she has no use for it. Make up your mind, either Iran has no issues fielding "useless" systems, in which case she would've gone with the S-300VM instead of pressing Russia for numerous months to deliver S-300PM's instead; or, when Iran deploys a system, it's that Iranian planners believe the system in question offers some kind of benefit. Can't have it both ways as per elementary rules of rational inference.



Condemnable behaviour, but the notion that Russia right from the outset had an intricate secret plan to take the Iranian order and then refuse to deliver, is nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory. Moscow adjusted to US and zionist pressure after the deal was signed. They shouldn't have and they must be strongly criticized for it, however initially there was no intention to trap Iran. Also, with the lasting deterioration of ties between Russia and the west, episodes like these are bound to become much rarer.



That's not the point. It's about the fact that the highlighted statement of yours was suggestive of the notion that Iran is the one which initiated the enmity.



What are you talking about? I was analyzing your comment. You're the one who cited Iranian policy as explanatory of zionist hostility.



What? Never made such a statement about domestic production.

I find the arguments put forth in favor of a consequent production run for Kosar fighter jets to be convincing. I'd like to see them produced in numbers.

The fact that I also subscribe to PeeD's view that three or four squadrons of modern Flankers purchased from Russia would be within the boundaries of Iran's doctrine and would take some pressure off the IADS in case of a war, does not imply that I'm advocating the abandonment of any of Iran's domestic production lines.



You're taking aim at Russia far more often and more energically than what you're seen doing against the zionist regime. This is problematic since it's not in line with Iranian policy and interests.

Leave him be. Thread is being derailed because of this blathering and I'd rather we discuss something more concrete that endlessly go back and forth with him over something even he knows is false.

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

Leave him be. Thread is being derailed because of this blathering and I'd rather we discuss something more concrete that endlessly go back and forth with him over something even he knows is false.

Yeah ive given up on him. He will literally argue that the sky is purple and water is dry. He will then take you on a circular reasoning causing you to repeat yourself which is why I had to stop...he got his arse kicked a few posts back as far as Im concerned. He's just a flapping headless chicken at this point...so best to walk away sniggering to ourselves.

 

[Hack-Hook]

No proof for that. Furthermore Hezbollah will not take delivery of an asset without the capability to utilize it, or without realistic plans to acquire said capability.

then show me proof for that , show me hezbollah long range radars

Iran was attributed a larger share of the Caspian territorial waters than the percentage of her actual coastline.

i said it all

Caspian Sea: How Iran Gives Up Territory and Resources to Increase its Influence

The treaty on the Caspian Sea is an example of how Iran gives up its territorial integrity and natural resources in exchange for the increase of influence.

theglobepost.com

this show how turkamanistan get the share that must not have got

The opposite is the case: your lack of persuasive arguments is compelling you to reference zionist propaganda. In addition to this habit of inverting the burden of proof.

i post may data , why you wont post yours?
you made a claim and expect others prove you wrong instead of proving your claim is right

It's not necessary to kill the crews or disintegrate a tank into tiny pieces: the tank has to be incapacitated in such a way that it can't be repaired on short notice, and will thus be counted as a de facto loss during the battle or the entire war.

The mishmash of data you copy/pasted is leaving out how many of those 18 tanks they claim were hit by ATGM's, were pulled out of service for the duration of the battle, which is what counts most.

if you actually bothered to read my post you see 370 were fielded 52 were hit and 21 pulled out sent back to be repaired from them 18 were repaired and 5 were scrapped

Then again, you're treating zionist-published figures as unquestionable fact.

when you fail to post not zionist data , those are all we have to work it , now a question how many atgm Hezbollah fired to damage those 21 tank

No, the question is why you're taking a zionist "official report" at face value when it's common knowledge that every information released by Tel Aviv is subject to military censorship, and that this regime has a long history of covering up probable losses - including in recent cases of retaliatory assassinations attributed to Iran, which you yourself have treated as factual in other discussions at this forum, despite the lack of real hard evidence (and I actually agree with it, just that the same logic ought to be applied to the case at hand) .

then tell us non Zionist truth report , better show us how many tank Hezbollah showed at the war museum later . the question is why you refrain from posting the actual true data based on hard evidence , if you don't accept israel data , then post the data you accept, if they are not top secret and part of national security

Moreover, the Hizbollah scored several clear victories over Israel’s military. According to an IDF Report Card published in the Jerusalem Post, Israel had deployed some 400 Merkava MK-4 tanks – its safest and deadliest tank – in Lebanon: 40 of these were hit by Hizbollah’s anti-tank weapons, 20 of them were destroyed, and 30 tank crewmen were killed.

no problem my data say 370 m yours say 400 , well i accept yours . but your data clearly show its failure when they say all 400 tank were MK-4
today 16 year after the war Israel have 550 Merkava-4 that 220 of them are in storage in short they don't have more than 330 active Merkava Mk-4 in-service .and certainly 16 years ago the number were a lot less then ,well if you claim in last 16 year they built zero tank then thats something else.

When zionists publish contradicting figures of their losses, we should pick whichever ones present the zionist military in a better light, is that what you're saying? This is while even the numbers right above could be minimizing the true extent of damage sustained by Merkava tanks as a consequence of Kornet ATGM impacts.

Zionist source ? didn't knew that "The Palestinian Chronicle " was a zionist media and Ramzy Baroud, Jennifer Loewenstein are zionists . good you told me that

You're treating zionist-made systems as "wonder weapons" while dismissing the efficiency of Russian-made ones. Don't be surprised then if readers consider this as a reflection of political preferences.

no i say after these improvement , the chance of the tank survival against those system increased its not important where is the origin of the systems. now if you claim all Israeli system are junk then look at Iran dome , that now Palestinian had to fire 50-60missile for one pass it

https://natoassociation.ca/irans-developing-military-capabilities-part-iv-air-defences-section-ii/

Iran is likely to have had access to the Nebo radar and other components used in the S-300 since the late 1990's or early 2000's, courtesy of a Croatian private arms dealer and more importantly, of what was surely a Russian front company in Belarus. Either way, Belarus will not export any high tier weaponry against Moscow's will.

no iran didn't have access to nebo radar as no s-300 fielded at the time because they were shipped with parts missing and iran never ever showed it

Strawman. I was responding to your question about the date on which Russia supplied Iran with a radar, which Iran had indeed placed an order for. Now you're talking about stuff Iran did not order.

and i say iran didn't get any radar as you failed to show a nebu radar (just said because the iranian radar look like nebu which actually it is not look like it just like your claim about Basir and krasnopol)
for god sake nebu radar have different role than Iranian one

That would be a lie (at this point it can hardly be a careless mistake) for I cited more than ATGM's and AK-103 rifles.

You were implying some of the radar systems Iran purchased from Russia were useless. This would mean Iranian decision makers are idiotic and need your advice on what to order from Russia and what not. Which, needless to say, would be a ludicrous thing to assume.

I implied those radar you claim Iran purchased from Russia actually are made in Iran and not the system you claim Iran bought from Russia , see a little difference from what I said and what you claim I said

If Russian supplies to Iran diminished after the early 2000's, that's because Iran's local defence industry had evolved to the point that it could engage in serial production of more hi-tech systems. Not because of some sudden u-turn by Russia.

yes like S-300 order or the mig-29 or the upgrade we wanted for mig-29.........

...and from reverse-engineering and studying weaponry obtained from Russia and China as well.

sure the weapon Russia.didn't provide or we made a deal with china for joint production and the tot of a system and they just gave us the end product , no tot

Simplistic blanket statements such as that the S-300PM2 with assorted S-400 components "is inferior to 15th Khordad, 3rd Khordand and Bavar-373" or vice versa make no sense and are unscientific. A correct and more factual formulation would be that the Bavar-373 offers superior performance and advantages in multiple aspects, while the custom S-300PM2 Iran received is on par if not superior in a few others. The other two SAM systems mentionned aren't in the same class.

sure , show me AESA radar on S-300 we received .

There's no technically detailed, professional report from Iran. And key word here is the operator forgot to perform a key setting. Congrats, you just blatantly proved your own assertion wrong: this is not called defective device, but human error.

The Tor series are a powerful and valuable air defence system by all serious accounts. Any attempt to suggest they will randomly misfire due to built-in flaws in their hardware is clownish, sorry to say. No serious military analyst would make such a claim, as it represents gutter press level propaganda.

and i said the system could not decide were is north were is south , hawk battery we recieved before revolution didn't had such problem, and they were not supposed to be mobile while tor was supposed to be mobile

I never claimed they were used to design Basir. You were denying Iranian procurement of Krasnopol rounds altogether by pointing to the Basir, in a false syllogism-type of strawman argument. But one proposition does not exclude the other. Sources I provided are explicit about Russian supply of Krasnopol rounds to Iran.

again grasping and straws while drowning , they were for Syrian ndf and militia there not Iran

Key word received. Moreover, you were bragging about Belarus in an umpteenth attempt to deny past Russian arms sales, now you're switching to something else without acknowledging the fallacy of your initial contention, namely that most of what Belarus exported to Iran was likely the work of Russian front companies in Minsk.

half system means it won't work , the radar and command center were missing only some trucks carrying missile , if that's your definition of received then ok

This represents faulty logic: first you claim S-300's are completely pointless to Iran's IADS but Iran is fielding them anyway, now you counter

yes because we have them and not using them is simply show lack of mental health , we needed them then , no we needed them 10 year sooner

that Iran rejected the Antey-2500 because she has no use for it.

what's strange we didn't need antey 2500 and we refused them as a replacement because we didn't order them . we wanted s-300 because it was our deal and at the time we recieved it we could built better system and we built it , we just used tose s-300 because we already paid for them and it was illogical not to use them . wonder what part id hard for you to understand ?

Moscow adjusted to US and zionist pressure after the deal was signed. They shouldn't have and they must be strongly criticized for it, yes. However initially there was no intention to trap Iran. Also, with the lasting deterioration of ties between Russia and the west, episodes like these are bound to become much rarer.

that's what happened and just like USA that must first prove its sincerity if we are to obey JCPOA again , Russia also must prove its sincerity.

That's not the point. It's about the fact that the highlighted statement of yours was suggestive of the notion that Iran is the one which initiated the enmity.

again something that i didn't said , all i said was that i understand their action as we are enemy but we are not supposed to be Russia enemy so you bringing them in a discussion about Russia is comparing orange and apple.

What? Never made such a statement about domestic production.

I find the arguments put forth in favor of a consequent production run for Kosar fighter jets to be convincing. I'd like to see them produced in numbers indeed.

our limited budget means that if we buy from 4-5 squadron of flanker from them . all our budget to increase military power was 4milliard euro last year for all branches of army , IRGC and basij ,you think how much will be share of air-force ?

You're taking aim at Russia more often and more energically than what you're seen doing against the zionist regime. This is what I'm having an issue with since it's hardly in line with Iranian policy and interests now, is it.

you support Israel regime and i also fight that as energetically , the problem is here there is blind support for anything Russians .
there are some group I hate and Russia is not part of them
1- Alqaeda and its ofshoots like ISIS and Al-nusra or Boko-Haram and Al-Shabab as i consider them Khavarij
2-Hamas as i consider them traitor and backstabbers
3-Zionism regime as i consider them Racist and a classic example of Apartheid
the rest I criticize but don't hate so its funny if somebody claim I support the Israel actions

 

[Hack-Hook]

He will literally argue that the sky is purple

are you denying the beauty of purple sky, you guys even don't look at the beauties of nature anymore

water is dry.

as you are so religion and see all the maters in religion light and Quranic verses how you forgot the story of Queen of Sheba and prophet Solomon Pbuh
also don't forget This

 

[SalarHaqq]

then show me proof for that , show me hezbollah long range radars

Here's an elementary rule of discussion you are yet to gain mastery of: the burden of proof rests with he who makes an allegation. I provided a compelling piece of circumstantial and rational corroboration, namely that Hezbollah will not induct a missile it cannot fire.

i said it all

Caspian Sea: How Iran Gives Up Territory and Resources to Increase its Influence

The treaty on the Caspian Sea is an example of how Iran gives up its territorial integrity and natural resources in exchange for the increase of influence.

theglobepost.com

this show how turkamanistan get the share that must not have got
View attachment 872417

1) The article shared is beyond ridiculous. It recycles the classic bit of disinformation spewed by anti-IR oppositionists, especially shahis, according to which Iran owned a "50%" share of the sea during Soviet times. This is a cheap attempt to suggest the Islamic Republic gave up Iranian territory. It's enough to look at the map to realize that if Iran's share amounted to "50%", then Azarbaijani off-shore oil would have had to be exploited by Iran and not by the USSR. Also, shortly before his demise the shah's own Foreign Minister, Ardeshir Zahedi, confirmed in an interview available on YouTube what a hollow myth this is. To paraphrase Zahedi's words, "aslan intor chizi nabud!"

2) The infographic is debatable. As highlighted elsewhere, the legal status of the Caspian Sea is one of the most complex questions of territorial partitioning in the world, because there's no clear cut response to be found in provisions of international law. So there is no definitive notion of what "share we must have gotten", it's eminently up to debate because it's a legal grey zone we're dealing with.

i post may data , why you wont post yours?

Are you sure I didn't?

But that's beside the main point. Because fact remains the data you offered is zionist-issued and I amply explained why it's hardly worth a dime.

you made a claim and expect others prove you wrong instead of proving your claim is right

You started off making a bold claim in this regard.

if you actually bothered to read my post you see 370 were fielded 52 were hit and 21 pulled out sent back to be repaired from them 18 were repaired and 5 were scrapped

18 + 5 = 21 according to your rules?

I read your post carefully enough, but it appears you yourself have a hard time following what it is you wrote.

1) You never uttered anything about 18 repaired tanks.

2) You clearly stated 18 Merkava MkIV's were hit by ATGM's of which one was destroyed. But you did not specify how many of the 17 remaining ones were retired from the front lines.

when you fail to post not zionist data , those are all we have to work it ,

Even if untrustworthy data is the only data available it doesn't cease being untrustworthy and therefore one can't draw far fetched conclusions from it, contrary to what you've been doing.

now a question how many atgm Hezbollah fired to damage those 21 tank

Seeing how you're not privy to that information, you aren't in a position to tergiversate on it.

then tell us non Zionist truth report , better show us how many tank Hezbollah showed at the war museum later .

Because every tank hit and damaged by Hezbollah was necessarily retrieved by the latter?

the question is why you refrain from posting the actual true data based on hard evidence , if you don't accept israel data , then post the data you accept, if they are not top secret and part of national security

In order to put to rest your assertion about the Kornet ATGM, it's enough for me to point to the fact that the numbers you posted are taken from an eminently dubious source.

no problem my data say 370 m yours say 400 , well i accept yours . but your data clearly show its failure when they say all 400 tank were MK-4
today 16 year after the war Israel have 550 Merkava-4 that 220 of them are in storage in short they don't have more than 330 active Merkava Mk-4 in-service .and certainly 16 years ago the number were a lot less then ,well if you claim in last 16 year they built zero tank then thats something else.

Again, the figures you posted are irrelevant because they originate from a biased institution subject to military censorship.

The Mk4 specification in the paper I shared could've been a misquote from the author, which is highly unlikely to be the case of the numbers it cites.

Zionist source ? didn't knew that "The Palestinian Chronicle " was a zionist media and Ramzy Baroud, Jennifer Loewenstein are zionists . good you told me that

Had you not stopped at the names of the website and its editors, you'd perhaps have noticed that the paper is referencing its primary source in footnote [10].

Which happens to read as follows:

[10] Yaakov Katz, “IDF report card,” Jerusalem Post (August 24, 2006).

Now I wasn't aware that the "I"DF and Jerusalem Post are "non-zionist" entities. Thanks a bunch for revealing this to me!

no i say after these improvement , the chance of the tank survival against those system increased its not important where is the origin of the systems. now if you claim all Israeli system are junk then look at Iran dome , that now Palestinian had to fire 50-60missile for one pass it

It's abundantly clear that there's no sense of proportion and realism in this glorification of zionist-designed weapons as compared to the tireless disparaging of Russian ones.

no iran didn't have access to nebo radar as no s-300 fielded at the time because they were shipped with parts missing and iran never ever showed it

Iran displayed a Nebo radar in a 2010 military parade, as specified in the article I shared.

Here's another one, from 2010:

Reassessing Iran's Air Defences

Iran, S-300, IADS, air defense, missile, radar

www.ausairpower.net

and i say iran didn't get any radar as you failed to show a nebu radar (just said because the iranian radar look like nebu which actually it is not look like it just like your claim about Basir and krasnopol)

I showed a source that reminds us how Iran put on display a Nebo radar in 2010.

I never insinuated Basir is copied from Krasnopol. What I underscored, is that Iran obtained Krasnopol rounds from Russia. There's a difference between these two propositions.

for god sake nebu radar have different role than Iranian one

1) So it's established now that Iran received advanced Russian radar systems prior to producing her own.

2) Studying advanced radar systems contributes to one's understanding of radar technology in general, and therefore to radar development of one's own. The Nebo and other such systems obtained from Russia gave Iran a boost in her domestic research and development of radar systems.

I implied those radar you claim Iran purchased from Russia actually are made in Iran and not the system you claim Iran bought from Russia , see a little difference from what I said and what you claim I said

There was no confusion of that kind on my part.

yes like S-300 order or the mig-29 or the upgrade we wanted for mig-29.........

No evidence exists for Iran requesting upgrades to its Mig-29 fleet in the late 2000's or in the 2010's and Russia turning it down.

Nor does the S-300 case represent a u-turn in Russian behaviour. As early as the 1990's already, Russia had been susceptible to US pressure, as the cancellation of arms deals upon request from the Clinton administration shows.

Another fact is that we're likely to witness fewer such incidents with the lasting deterioration of ties between Russia and the west due to the Ukrainian crisis.

sure the weapon Russia.didn't provide or we made a deal with china for joint production and the tot of a system and they just gave us the end product , no tot

I was talking about the weapons systems obtained from Russia and China.

sure , show me AESA radar on S-300 we received .

Try grasping nuance as well as simple terms such as aspects (plural).

and i said the system could not decide were is north were is south ,

Didn't you explicitly state the operator forgot to carry out the relevant setting? That's not indicative of sub-par or deficient hardware but of human error.

hawk battery we recieved before revolution didn't had such problem, and they were not supposed to be mobile while tor was supposed to be mobile

Irrelevant.

again grasping and straws while drowning , they were for Syrian ndf and militia there not Iran

The third source I provided is explicit about Russian supply of Krasnopol rounds to Iran - not to Syria, not to the NDF, but outside the context of the Syrian war.

half system means it won't work , the radar and command center were missing only some trucks carrying missile , if that's your definition of received then ok

Nobody here has a precise idea as to whether components were missing or not let alone which components, because it's classified information.

Secondly, what Iran procured was helpful to Iranian scientists who inspected the material in detail and learnt something new from it.

yes because we have them and not using them is simply show lack of mental health , we needed them then , no we needed them 10 year sooner

Putting to use a complex weapons system one doesn't need is a sign of psychopathology, not the opposite.

what's strange we didn't need antey 2500 and we refused them as a replacement because we didn't order them . we wanted s-300 because it was our deal and at the time we recieved it we could built better system and we built it , we just used tose s-300 because we already paid for them and it was illogical not to use them . wonder what part id hard for you to understand ?

There's no logic in fielding a weapons system one sees no benefit in. If it's deployed and integrated into the IADS, it implies that Iran is seeing a role for it.

that's what happened and just like USA that must first prove its sincerity if we are to obey JCPOA again , Russia also must prove its sincerity.

Iran has signed multiple contracts with Russia since the S-300 delivery and will continue along that path.

again something that i didn't said , all i said was that i understand their action as we are enemy but we are not supposed to be Russia enemy so you bringing them in a discussion about Russia is comparing orange and apple.

One's respective stance vis à vis these two governments is a valid yardstick as to how conforming one's view is with Iran's interests.

our limited budget means that if we buy from 4-5 squadron of flanker from them .

3-4 (twelver squadrons).

all our budget to increase military power was 4milliard euro last year for all branches of army , IRGC and basij ,you think how much will be share of air-force ?

These funds will have to be mobilized independently from the regular air force budget. It'd be an extraordinary investment, the type of which is consented to only once in a decade or so.

and i also fight that as energetically , the problem is here there is blind support for anything Russians .

If anything, there's too much Russia-bashing going on considering the current status of Iran-Russia relations.

there are some group I hate and Russia is not part of them
1- Alqaeda and its ofshoots like ISIS and Al-nusra or Boko-Haram and Al-Shabab as i consider them Khavarij
2-Hamas as i consider them traitor and backstabbers
3-Zionism regime as i consider them Racist and a classic example of Apartheid
the rest I criticize but don't hate so its funny if somebody claim I support the Israel actions

There's a slight priority issue here. A supposed "traitor" and "backstabber" whose influence doesn't surpass a ghettoized impoverished strip of land the size of a city, is infinitely more harmless than a nuclear-armed apartheid regime whose associated lobbies have the greatest impact possible on the policies of the world's imperial "superpower".

Same goes for takfiri terrorists, who wouldn't have been able to cause problems if it wasn't for the fact that they've been empowered and propped up by the same zio-American empire - getting the hierarchy of one's enemies wrong is almost as hazardous as being oblivious to their identity.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Here's an elementary rule of discussion you are yet to gain mastery of: the burden of proof rests with he who makes an allegation. I provided a compelling piece of circumstantial and rational corroboration, namely that Hezbollah will not induct a missile it cannot fire.

Israeli HAROP anti radiation drones and HARM missiles will hunt them down. Same thing happened in 2020 Karabach war. S-300 radars and TOR-M2 couldn't stand a chance.

In a better scenario they would just be destroyed with prior intelligence and guided missiles.

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

are you denying the beauty of purple sky, you guys even don't look at the beauties of nature anymore

as you are so religion and see all the maters in religion light and Quranic verses how you forgot the story of Queen of Sheba and prophet Solomon Pbuh
also don't forget This

The sky is still blue, using camera filters doesnt change that.

When quoting Quran, at least have the decency to give the reference instead of being so disrespectful. The reference is Surah Al Naml Ayat 44 where the As-Sarh was a piece of glass with water underneath it, Sheba thought it was water but was fooled by the glass upon it. So she became a believer by the amazing miracle she witnessed. At no point does the Quran state that "water is dry" nor can you prove that water is dry from a scientific angle either. May Allah guide you.

However, seeing as you are the forum clown, can you also "prove" to me that oxygen is not breathable, fish are a type of dragon and hot is actually cold? Won't ever take anything you say seriously again, so this is purely for mine and my kinsmen's entertainment.

 

[Beny Karachun]

The sky is still blue, using camera filters doesnt change that.

It's actually possible for the sky to appear purple

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

It's actually possible for the sky to appear purple

Nobody was talking to you. And no the sky is never purple.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Nobody was talking to you. And no the sky is never purple.

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

View attachment 872480

Those are shades of blue. Sorry to offend your god google.