IRIAF | News and Discussions

[gambit]

This makes zero sense. First Strike aircraft don’t exist in modern Iranian military philosophy to a significant degree they are replaced by missiles.

Here is the real world deal...

A critical component of defense is deterrence, after all, if your enemy is somehow discouraged from attacking you, that is defense. But also critical to your defense posture and war doctrine is what kind of hardware you have, in other words, what kind of weapons you have determines how you respond.

A missile is a throw away weapon, but not only that, you have no control over it, that mean you have no flexibility in how you could create a deterrence impression. Once you launch the missile, you are committed to war. A threat could be a bluff or worse, a ruse to lead you into action. A missile launched mean you are committed to that ruse whether you know the enemy created that bait or not. It is too late to second guess yourself. The missile is airborne and once it land, it will create death and destruction. War results.

This is why the airplane will always be the superior method in creating a deterrence impression. The airplane can be just as committed to death and destruction as the missile but because the airplane have the option of returning to base, you will never be locked into a response. You can abort the response all the way up to the last second. Your commitment to war is absolute the moment you launched the missile, whereas with the airplane, you can delay commitment until the last moment which can be by crossing the border or wait until literally over the enemy target. The missile cannot offer you that freedom. You launched, you war. So in the long term, the impression non-ally but non-hostile neighbors have of you is that you are dangerous or even unstable. They will always be wary of miscommunication which is always present because they know that you have only one response to a miscommunication -- war. So they would rather minimize their relationship with you.

What I said is not absurd. The airplane's effects on national security postures are reflected in 'The Influence Of Air Power Upon History' by Walter Boyne. This book is on many air chiefs' recommended reading list. The book is in my home library.

https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/AF06-CAF-Reading-List-2011.pdf

The missile's simple design and fast manufacture are seductive but the missile serves only one purpose. The airplane, many.

 

[Stryker1982]

Here is the real world deal...

A critical component of defense is deterrence, after all, if your enemy is somehow discouraged from attacking you, that is defense. But also critical to your defense posture and war doctrine is what kind of hardware you have, in other words, what kind of weapons you have determines how you respond.

A missile is a throw away weapon, but not only that, you have no control over it, that mean you have no flexibility in how you could create a deterrence impression. Once you launch the missile, you are committed to war. A threat could be a bluff or worse, a ruse to lead you into action. A missile launched mean you are committed to that ruse whether you know the enemy created that bait or not. It is too late to second guess yourself. The missile is airborne and once it land, it will create death and destruction. War results.

This is why the airplane will always be the superior method in creating a deterrence impression. The airplane can be just as committed to death and destruction as the missile but because the airplane have the option of returning to base, you will never be locked into a response. You can abort the response all the way up to the last second. Your commitment to war is absolute the moment you launched the missile, whereas with the airplane, you can delay commitment until the last moment which can be by crossing the border or wait until literally over the enemy target. The missile cannot offer you that freedom. You launched, you war. So in the long term, the impression non-ally but non-hostile neighbors have of you is that you are dangerous or even unstable. They will always be wary of miscommunication which is always present because they know that you have only one response to a miscommunication -- war. So they would rather minimize their relationship with you.

What I said is not absurd. The airplane's effects on national security postures are reflected in 'The Influence Of Air Power Upon History' by Walter Boyne. This book is on many air chiefs' recommended reading list. The book is in my home library.

https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/AF06-CAF-Reading-List-2011.pdf

The missile's simple design and fast manufacture are seductive but the missile serves only one purpose. The airplane, many.

If your at a point where you abort an air operation you already started, that is pretty indicative that you shouldn't be starting a war due to lack of conviction in your actions. Atleast with regards to missiles, you are dealing with an enemy with resolve as proven by the launch.

I don't disagree with your point, I think the idea of running air drills close to an enemy airspace generally gives the point of deterrence without launching anything. For the missiles that option doesn't really exist. Although Iran on many occasions have used it's missiles in the manner which you state on a number of occasions in Iraq and Syria.

 

[mohsen]

Yeah in 60’s and 70’s there was something called nuclear bomb. Maybe you heard of it, it was going to be used against hardened C & C bases and other HVT targets.

China built their underground airforce bases in mountains with nuclear proof strike because they believed US wouldn’t hestitate to use nukes. They were right, recent declassified Pentagon war plans against China back in the Cold War included open acknowledgement of the possibility of nuclear bombs being used on Chinese targets.

Also the only bunker buster that can affect new generation (post Fordow) Iranian underground sites is the MOAB which can realistically only be carried by the B-2 during war time in hostile airspace. Sending a B-52 or C-130 would be a death sentence.

Lastly these tunnels all have pressurized blast doors at X meters for a reason. You won’t be able to cause a concussive blast wave from the entrance to create a tunneling effect and reach deeper into the base, thus the Bunker buster will have to dropped more on the mountain if you want a deeper hit inside the base. And that means more bedrock to cut thru = less probability of penetration.

Pre-Fordow, Iran designed Fordow assuming the bunker buster bombs of early 2000’s +- a margin of error. Debatable if Fordow is truly nuke proof. However, US ended up building bigger bunker busters. Thus Iran when it came to designing Missile bases and the next gen nuclear enrichment hall + centrifuge parts facility (currently being built), built them to withstand a tactical nuclear strike.

So I do trust Iranian military engineers in this regard over us amateurs on a military forum.

Pataramesh agrees with my assessment btw

I don't know what you are blabbering, there was a hole in the mountain and I saw with my own eyes captain maverick with his F18 flew 2 minutes into Iran and managed to ravel the underground site with just 2 regular bombs.


AND THIS WAS THEIR MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

 

[TheImmortal]

This is why the airplane will always be the superior method in creating a deterrence impression.

If you have decent air defenses you can shoot down an airplane. If you have exceptional air defenses you can shoot down a 5th Gen.

Good luck trying to shoot down a Mach 10 warhead or a Mach 5 glide warhead flying depressed trajectory. When the target bank is hundreds of targets and interceptors are spread across only so many points.

At that point it becomes interceptor vs missile and who has more kinetic energy to bleed. So THAADS need to be matched up appropriately with their counterparts to have even a decent chance of interception. Or else if you send a patriot to do a THAADS job against a Sejil-2 then it will bleed itself in F-pole.

Airplanes being deterrence don’t even work against the Taliban.

Lastly you missed my point, Iran’s airforce is not built for long range sorties that would be needed against Israel or US.

If you have to choose between protecting your skies vs having extra firepower to do some bombing raid, any General is protecting his skies when the threat is real. Thus limited space in the underground bunker so you choose the more important role aircraft to protect and that is the interceptor not the bomber.

You can abort the response all the way up to the last second.

Actually that’s not true. In military circles there is a period beyond which you cannot call off the air strike because the supporting functions and military branches are prepared for engagement. What exact period is, is mission specific and probably classified. Certainly is not “last second”. Who wrote this? A Fox News host? Reminds me of Trump calling off Iranian air strikes at “last second”. That had to be walked back by pentagon. You watch too many Hollywood movies if you think that.

You don’t wake up and decide to bomb another country, while thinking the other country isn’t seeing all the preparations taking place. You think they are saying “let’s wait till they drop their bombs on us and then fire back at them”. This isn’t a rifle group firing at each other in 1700’s

Also nearly every major long range missile system today has a self detonation mechanism on them. Iranian missiles have carried them as well especially during testing to not leak too much data during a test flight. US hypersonics also carry them during test flight.

So this thinking that once you fire a missile it’s Armageddon is illogical. Almost as illogical as thinking you can fly 24 fighters at an enemy battle group and call it off at the “last second”.

That’s why military drills are announced in advance. That’s why air defense zone violations with no supporting assets (heightened military alerts, long range assets on alert, carrier groups on alert) are not the end of the world. Militaries can tell when one side is sending their airforce over for show and when it’s serious, the signs are completely different.

 

[Stryker1982]

I don't know what you are blabbering, there was a hole in the mountain and I saw with my own eyes captain maverick with his F18 flew 2 minutes into Iran and managed to ravel the underground site with just 2 regular bombs.


AND THIS WAS THEIR MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

I actually just saw the movie today HAHA. I thought that was funny, but the visuals were still very nice

 

[Muhammed45]

Here is the real world deal...

A critical component of defense is deterrence, after all, if your enemy is somehow discouraged from attacking you, that is defense. But also critical to your defense posture and war doctrine is what kind of hardware you have, in other words, what kind of weapons you have determines how you respond.

A missile is a throw away weapon, but not only that, you have no control over it, that mean you have no flexibility in how you could create a deterrence impression. Once you launch the missile, you are committed to war. A threat could be a bluff or worse, a ruse to lead you into action. A missile launched mean you are committed to that ruse whether you know the enemy created that bait or not. It is too late to second guess yourself. The missile is airborne and once it land, it will create death and destruction. War results.

This is why the airplane will always be the superior method in creating a deterrence impression. The airplane can be just as committed to death and destruction as the missile but because the airplane have the option of returning to base, you will never be locked into a response. You can abort the response all the way up to the last second. Your commitment to war is absolute the moment you launched the missile, whereas with the airplane, you can delay commitment until the last moment which can be by crossing the border or wait until literally over the enemy target. The missile cannot offer you that freedom. You launched, you war. So in the long term, the impression non-ally but non-hostile neighbors have of you is that you are dangerous or even unstable. They will always be wary of miscommunication which is always present because they know that you have only one response to a miscommunication -- war. So they would rather minimize their relationship with you.

What I said is not absurd. The airplane's effects on national security postures are reflected in 'The Influence Of Air Power Upon History' by Walter Boyne. This book is on many air chiefs' recommended reading list. The book is in my home library.

https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/AF06-CAF-Reading-List-2011.pdf

The missile's simple design and fast manufacture are seductive but the missile serves only one purpose. The airplane, many.

Once Shah of Iran submitted his wish list to American companies and institutions related to defense industries. There was plenty of weapons mentioned and requested in his list including submarines, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, fighter jets etc.

But the Americans strongly refused BMs and submarines. Can you tell us why?

 

[jauk]

Here is the real world deal...

A critical component of defense is deterrence, after all, if your enemy is somehow discouraged from attacking you, that is defense. But also critical to your defense posture and war doctrine is what kind of hardware you have, in other words, what kind of weapons you have determines how you respond.

A missile is a throw away weapon, but not only that, you have no control over it, that mean you have no flexibility in how you could create a deterrence impression. Once you launch the missile, you are committed to war. A threat could be a bluff or worse, a ruse to lead you into action. A missile launched mean you are committed to that ruse whether you know the enemy created that bait or not. It is too late to second guess yourself. The missile is airborne and once it land, it will create death and destruction. War results.

This is why the airplane will always be the superior method in creating a deterrence impression. The airplane can be just as committed to death and destruction as the missile but because the airplane have the option of returning to base, you will never be locked into a response. You can abort the response all the way up to the last second. Your commitment to war is absolute the moment you launched the missile, whereas with the airplane, you can delay commitment until the last moment which can be by crossing the border or wait until literally over the enemy target. The missile cannot offer you that freedom. You launched, you war. So in the long term, the impression non-ally but non-hostile neighbors have of you is that you are dangerous or even unstable. They will always be wary of miscommunication which is always present because they know that you have only one response to a miscommunication -- war. So they would rather minimize their relationship with you.

What I said is not absurd. The airplane's effects on national security postures are reflected in 'The Influence Of Air Power Upon History' by Walter Boyne. This book is on many air chiefs' recommended reading list. The book is in my home library.

https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/AF06-CAF-Reading-List-2011.pdf

The missile's simple design and fast manufacture are seductive but the missile serves only one purpose. The airplane, many.

Your analysis reminds me of the IBM of the 80s. IBM dominated by far in mainframe technology. Trouble was they had won a war nobody was interested in. They almost went under.The book you reference is also fossilized thinking by a ‘prolific aviation writer’ who has not realized his mainframe moment.

Additionally you fail to mention the innovation Iran has brought to missiles. It’s not missiles themselves but their ability to execute precision and uninterceptable strikes on targets. This significant nuance in combination with other hybrid elements like drones have leapfrogged Iran far beyond a $4.99 pulp book you reference (and it’s ‘updates’).

Same goes with the garbage systems like the F this or that upteenth generation it promotes as the battlefield silver bullets they never were. So, yes, these monstrosities can be recalled once they’ve frightened a tinpot dictator. Iran not so much.

 

[gambit]

When was the last time anyone went to war with missiles and how did that turned out?

 

[gambit]

If your at a point where you abort an air operation you already started, that is pretty indicative that you shouldn't be starting a war due to lack of conviction in your actions. Atleast with regards to missiles, you are dealing with an enemy with resolve as proven by the launch.

That is a political issue. My point, which no surprise was missed by all in eagerness to 'debunk' an American, was that the airplane in all of its variants offers doctrinal, strategic, and tactical flexibility. No other device, not even the ship, can match. If you throw a rock, you just attacked the enemy via airpower, small as it is. Same with the arrow and the bullet. But all three pales in comparison to the airplane in terms of mastery of the 3rd dimension.

I don't disagree with your point, I think the idea of running air drills close to an enemy airspace generally gives the point of deterrence without launching anything. For the missiles that option doesn't really exist. Although Iran on many occasions have used it's missiles in the manner which you state on a number of occasions in Iraq and Syria.

Of course you can exercise with live missiles. Essentially, you will be throwing away a lot of ordnance.

The US military is dedicated to the airplane, and we hope the rest of the world does not.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Also the only bunker buster that can affect new generation (post Fordow) Iranian underground sites is the MOAB which can realistically only be carried by the B-2 during war time in hostile airspace. Sending a B-52 or C-130 would be a death sentence.

you see i don't care at all about destroying what\s inside the bunker as long as it can't get out of it . many more type of bunker busters than MOAB can destroy those entrances and it least keep them closed for several hours more likely days
if in war you give control of the sky to the enemy for that amount of time he can bomb those entrances time and time and time and keep them closed as long as it want

This makes zero sense. First Strike aircraft don’t exist in modern Iranian military philosophy to a significant degree they are replaced by missiles. This isn’t a land invasion of Iran and your enemy (US or Israel) will not be right next to Iran that you can fly over to their country and bomb their targets a la Iraq war.

there are drones , there f-7 , there are f-4 there are su-24 . those are litterally strike aircrafts .

Iran‘s most important DEFENSIVE task during a war is to protect the skies and take the strain off Iran’s air defense systems from shouldering all the burden and getting exposed. Because if Iran’s air defense rings collapse than it doesn’t matter how many missiles you have, the war is going to leave Iran a bloody mess and will not end in a ceasefire on Iranian terms.

thats why the interceptors must be ready to fly at notice and underground bases don\t make sense at all , you want to protect them then disperse them around the country in reinforced shelters . not gathered in one place

 

[Hack-Hook]

Once Shah of Iran submitted his wish list to American companies and institutions related to defense industries. There was plenty of weapons mentioned and requested in his list including submarines, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, fighter jets etc.

But the Americans strongly refused BMs and submarines. Can you tell us why?

submarines would have played no role in war with USSR and can you tell me at the time what type of missiles american could provide at the time ?
they agreed on their best airplanes , which was F-14 and F-16 and I'm certain if shah asked them they gave him F-15 as much as he wanted as they saw that as strengthening the line between USSR and energy resources in Persian gulf

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

submarines would have played no role in war with USSR and can you tell me at the time what type of missiles american could provide at the time ?

Submarines are one of the best ways of delivering a nuke.

 

[Hack-Hook]

When was the last time anyone went to war with missiles and how did that turned out?

honestly , going to war without enough boot on the ground also didn't looked promising ..

 

[Hack-Hook]

Submarines are one of the best ways of delivering a nuke.

iran was not supposed to have nuke and at the time 1970-78 which type of nukes submarine could deliver .
which type of submarine could deliver them ? were they able to deliver them from Persian gulf ? could transport them to caspian sea ? did those type of submarine who could deliver nukes even deployable in Caspian sea?

USA was not in love with King Mohammad reza , eye and eyebrow . they were calculating what they wanted to give him. they were giving him air force and aviation equipment as much as he wanted and at the best of quality . because they saw it as strengthening factors in their defensive lines . they gave him ground equipment because the exact same reason . they would not have gave him big ships and submarines because they didn't want hip outside Persian gulf , Makoran sea and Arabian sea . that why in the navy the best they agreed was Kidd Class frigates that were good for those areas . they would have given him artillery rockets as much as he wanted but ballistic missile ? even they didn't gave them to Israel . it was french who gave it to them

 

[Muhammed45]

submarines would have played no role in war with USSR and can you tell me at the time what type of missiles american could provide at the time ?
they agreed on their best airplanes , which was F-14 and F-16 and I'm certain if shah asked them they gave him F-15 as much as he wanted as they saw that as strengthening the line between USSR and energy resources in Persian gulf

And that's the main point. Soviets would have flattened us and none of those shiny fighter jets could have made a little difference.

F14s couldn't stop Soviets missile rain on us.

Don't forget the importance of Caspian sea. Americans didn't even agree on transferring missiles with a range below 300 KM. BMs are strategic assets, but fighter jets can be easily defused by ground based ADs.