IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Arash1991]

(...)The only way to change your tactic against Iran, is to keep your forces out of our missile range, and make them ineffective in the war. but then again, for a country which is thousands of kilometers away and likes to count on extensive support during it's invasions (like months of piling the equipment in your previous wars) that's impossible, even during Vietnam war where you were still able to create support point for forces, US experienced a humiliating defeat. simply you are not a man of war.

Ive read some Think tank analysis about exactly this. Its about "how to deal with Iran from the distance when it comes to war". The analysis is little bit outdated because since then, Iranian accurate Missile range increased. The solution was in my eyes not very practical but better than nothing. It was to keep distance in the northern Indian Ocean and gain air supriority in the Hormuz Region from there. And after this happens a invasion in Hormuzgan province would be the plan. In my eyes very risky thing.
The other fact is that they did not give Irans Air defence a high value in this paper. But this also changed.

One thing that makes really headache in the future will be the development of effective laser weapons. I think laser Weapons are the only solution against Irans Ballistic missiles.
Anoither point is that US strongly invested specially in the Persian Gulf region in Air defence Systems against missiles. Lot of weapon deals with Arabian States on the Persian Gulf are related to missile defence. Although I dont think that this will be the solution, on the other hand I dont think that they are absolutely useless.

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

One thing that makes really headache in the future will be the development of effective laser weapons. I think laser Weapons are the only solution against Irans Ballistic missiles.

Laser weapons require a lot of energy, though and reflective surfaces can render the damage less effective at least.

Will laser technology advance that much in 30 years to be viable for this sort of application?

 

[thesaint]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1564757964224880640

 

[gambit]

That's why you haven't seen a real war.

If Desert Storm was not a 'real' war, then neither was the Iran-Iraq War, or any armed conflict since then. So forget about criticizing the MC exercise, which I doubt you understood to start, you changing the meaning and context of what is a 'real' war is more a feeble attempt to minimize a war that exposed Iran's military weaknesses.

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

If Desert Storm was not a 'real' war, then neither was the Iran-Iraq War, or any armed conflict since then. So forget about criticizing the MC exercise, which I doubt you understood to start, you changing the meaning and context of what is a 'real' war is more a feeble attempt to minimize a war that exposed Iran's military weaknesses.

It wasn't a real war. It was a one-sided beat down where the iraqis surrendered more than they fought and friendly fire caused a good portion of coalition casualties.

 

[mohsen]

If Desert Storm was not a 'real' war, then neither was the Iran-Iraq War, or any armed conflict since then. So forget about criticizing the MC exercise, which I doubt you understood to start, you changing the meaning and context of what is a 'real' war is more a feeble attempt to minimize a war that exposed Iran's military weaknesses.

Tulsi Gabbard Says 'War With Iran Would Make Iraq/Afghanistan Wars Seem Like A Picnic'

Gabbard: 'War With Iran Would Make Iraq/Afghanistan...Seem Like a Picnic'

The congresswoman and Iraq War veteran said the strike killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani has endangered U.S. national security.

www.newsweek.com

Picnic it was regardless of any other war.

 

[Arash1991]

Laser weapons require a lot of energy, though and reflective surfaces can render the damage less effective at least.

Will laser technology advance that much in 30 years to be viable for this sort of application?

Yes I think so. Even today there are working laser devices against artillery shell and smaller missiles in use. The point is that battery technology is moving forward very fast or energy saving devices. Iran is also strong in this field and invented functioning early laser weapons. I tguessrange is some kilometers maybe like iron beam, Source
France have Laser Program in development against Air targets between 400 to 600 km range. US also, Nearly every Industrial and technology nation have at least one project directly or indirectly connected to such a project.
Unfortuntely Israel already put these weapons in active use. Its called: "Iron Beam".Source
Its a Laser weapon with 7 km range. It can detect and destroy targets within this range. Targets are artillery shells, small missiles (BM-21) or drones. Development started in 2014 and 2020 the system joined the Zionist forces.
According to Zionist Regime, Israel can deliver single digit number in the next following years. System have some childrens diseases wich is in my opinion normal if you add an absolutely new technology wich was never used before in that constellation. US also had experimental Laser programs. Generally, the biggest problem of Laser is energy. And back to your question: The next 30 years will be interesting and I personally believe that everything will go in this direction.

About your mirror Idea:
Ryan Hoffman, Counter-Directed Energy program manager, says that mirrors protect well against low-power lasers. “However, reflective surfaces are not 100 percent reflective,” he says. “The small amount of laser energy that’s absorbed will heat the mirror and cause damage.”


To avoid this, drones will require a superior mirror. Dielectric or Bragg mirrors are composed of many layers of dielectric material (a type of insulator), with precise spacing between each one. By adjusting the layers, engineers can create a mirror with a reflectivity of up to 99.99 percent. That reflectivity, however, only works for a specific, narrow range of wavelengths.


“Protecting against all wavelengths would be ideal, but difficult,” Hoffman says.

Source

So of this mirror technology will be developed (I think as contermeasure, it will because traditional anti head surfaces have too much weight), we may face the problem to choose between a mirror surface of an object or a stealth coat. For drones, Stealth could be interesting, for ballistic missiles the mirror would be maybe better solution.
But what about Hypersonic missiles? Any Idea? Because Hypersonic is producing a Plasma around the Hypersonic objectwich makes it automatically stealth. Only possibility to track this is done by Quantum Radars wich are working with Quantum mecanics. First prototype developed in China and according to them they are working. Source

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

Yes I think so. Even today there are working laser devices against artillery shell and smaller missiles in use. The point is that battery technology is moving forward very fast or energy saving devices. Iran is also strong in this field and invented functioning early laser weapons. I tguessrange is some kilometers maybe like iron beam, Source
France have Laser Program in development against Air targets between 400 to 600 km range. US also, Nearly every Industrial and technology nation have at least one project directly or indirectly connected to such a project.
Unfortuntely Israel already put these weapons in active use. Its called: "Iron Beam".Source
Its a Laser weapon with 7 km range. It can detect and destroy targets within this range. Targets are artillery shells, small missiles (BM-21) or drones. Development started in 2014 and 2020 the system joined the Zionist forces.
According to Zionist Regime, Israel can deliver single digit number in the next following years. System have some childrens diseases wich is in my opinion normal if you add an absolutely new technology wich was never used before in that constellation. US also had experimental Laser programs. Generally, the biggest problem of Laser is energy. And back to your question: The next 30 years will be interesting and I personally believe that everything will go in this direction.

About your mirror Idea:
Ryan Hoffman, Counter-Directed Energy program manager, says that mirrors protect well against low-power lasers. “However, reflective surfaces are not 100 percent reflective,” he says. “The small amount of laser energy that’s absorbed will heat the mirror and cause damage.”


To avoid this, drones will require a superior mirror. Dielectric or Bragg mirrors are composed of many layers of dielectric material (a type of insulator), with precise spacing between each one. By adjusting the layers, engineers can create a mirror with a reflectivity of up to 99.99 percent. That reflectivity, however, only works for a specific, narrow range of wavelengths.


“Protecting against all wavelengths would be ideal, but difficult,” Hoffman says.

Source

So of this mirror technology will be developed (I think as contermeasure, it will because traditional anti head surfaces have too much weight), we may face the problem to choose between a mirror surface of an object or a stealth coat. For drones, Stealth could be interesting, for ballistic missiles the mirror would be maybe better solution.
But what about Hypersonic missiles? Any Idea? Because Hypersonic is producing a Plasma around the Hypersonic objectwich makes it automatically stealth. Only possibility to track this is done by Quantum Radars wich are working with Quantum mecanics. First prototype developed in China and according to them they are working. Source

I appreciate the response. Unfortunately, I must sleep now and only skimmed the post but when I awake, I'll read the it more carefully.

 

[Arash1991]

It wasn't a real war. It was a one-sided beat down where the iraqis surrendered more than they fought and friendly fire caused a good portion of coalition casualties.

I know what you mean when you write that it was not a real war. However, your statement is wrong by definition. If you look at it exactly and let the war literature come to words in which the war and its rules for victory are described (Sun tzu "the art of war" or Clausewitz "of war") then the war is by definition a war.
War is defined as an organized conflict fought with weapons and violence using considerable means,in which collectives proceeding according to plan are involved. The goal of the collectives involved is to assert their interests. The conflict is to be resolved by fighting and achieving superiority.
Furthermore, a battle should only be fought when it has already been won (suntzu). This means that the opponent must already be weakened so much that the act of war itself is only a formal underpinning of the true balance of power. Furthermore, in a war the opponent is forced to fulfill the will of another party. The means for it is the force. (Clausewitz "of the war")

Don't get me wrong: I understand what you mean and actually want to say with your statement. But still it was a war. Even a very successful one, because the winners of this war have fulfilled all conditions of the philosophy of war almost in perfection.

Good night bro

 

[Stryker1982]

Don't get me wrong: I understand what you mean and actually want to say with your statement. But still it was a war. Even a very successful one, because the winners of this war have fulfilled all conditions of the philosophy of war almost in perfection.

I do tend to agree with this. It was succesfull, but what many don't understand, is that war is a tool and a part of diplomacy and politics. The US is successful at this tool, but failed miserably at the other parts and ended up with no tangible results. One must always remember this, but we are in a military forum here so we focus on weapons.

I think after 8 years war, we learned that war is just a small part of diplomacy and politics, and the same results can be attained without firing a shot. War is a last resort for Iran.

 

[Arash1991]

I do tend to agree with this. It was succesfull, but what many don't understand, is that war is a tool and a part of diplomacy and politics. The US is successful at this tool, but failed miserably at the other parts and ended up with no tangible results. One must always remember this, but we are in a military forum here so we focus on weapons.

I think after 8 years war, we learned that war is just a small part of diplomacy and politics, and the same results can be attained without firing a shot. War is a last resort for Iran.

Iran is living that mindset. Thanks to god

 

[gambit]

It wasn't a real war. It was a one-sided beat down where the iraqis surrendered more than they fought and friendly fire caused a good portion of coalition casualties.

Can you give a credible reference other than yourself?

 

[Abid123]

Can you give a credible reference other than yourself?

Why do you have a habit of always mentioning the 1991 gulf war when talking about Iran?

Regarding the Gulf War Saddam Hussein was a complete idiot. Had Iraq gone on the offensive before the allies had build up their forces, it would have been a disaster for the US.

It would mean no coalition buildup, no Desert Shield, No Desert Storm...

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

Can you give a credible reference other than yourself?

Sure, there are thousands of americans who participated in desert storm.

Most have their heads up their arses, much like yourself but a few will tell you as it was - a video game turned reality, difficulty set to moderate (because at least saddam's air force performed in some capacity).

 

[gambit]

Sure, there are thousands of americans who participated in desert storm.

Most have their heads up their arses, much like yourself but a few will tell you as it was - a video game turned reality, difficulty set to moderate (because at least saddam's air force performed in some capacity).

So in YOUR case, probably someone who play video games, never served a day, his head up his ***, make you just as much a military 'expert' as someone who done 10+ yrs?