IRIAF | News and Discussions

[WudangMaster]

Yes that is true, that would affect the scenario, Hezbollah plays a huge factor BUT that also adds another conflict to the list, more targets, more enemies and only a finite number of long range fires. Afterall, its not like the stockpile is unlimited. Closing the strait also adds more enemies, how many countries do we want to fight at the same time lol.

Hence the need for Iran to make such conflicts as costly as possible for all opponents and continue heavy investment in domestic industry to lead to more weapons. I also hope there are more potent weapons for them or they gain breakout for that ability.

 

[OldTwilight]

BMs were just western hysteria. They wouldn’t change the war. Russia can already attack most Ukrainian fixed targets at will.

What Russia needs is anti-personnel weapons and more manpower. You have 100-150K Russian troops fighting against 500K-750K conscripts and draftees. No BM or drone is gonna change that.

The point is that we could not pay them , so we supposed to give them things in exchange...

 

[mohsen]

Some of you guys here have a bit of a delusion when it comes to US military. They have alot of capability and full control of the escalation ladder.

We know what Iran's limits are, and destroying bases in the initial phase does not mean the end of US military power. They still have alot of strategic bombers. Once these bases are leveled, their are no more targets, i.e. they will just continue using strategic bombers from long ranges without any recourse directly on Iranian mainland. Can Iran respond to the US mainland? (no). This by default means, Iran will lose decades worth of infrastructure that will take billions to rebuild, while the US only takes military and equipment casualties. This is what the end of the escalation ladder leads towards.

Hence, I've always believed, the only way to add another layer to this issue, would be to remove the 2000km range limit bullshit completely, and start stockpiling conventional IRBMs. This bullshit of the limit needs to be removed, and has dire consequences and hopefully they've already removed it secretly years ago.

1. One of US states, in fact, the most important one, is well within our reach, Israel.

2.Even against weak Ukraine with limited air defense, Russia doesn't dare to use it's strategic bombers. just stand off cruise missiles from their own soil.

3.Lots of energy infrastructures within middle east belongs to US companies, two strategic water ways is under our control, all of these means collapse of US economy.

4. Iran will activate it's proxy forces and US forces within thousands of kilometers will come under daily attacks, with no effective support.

5. US will loose all of it's nay within our range, while their entire navy around the world can be attacked by submarines, and I assure you there will be countries who will help un on that (for their own good).


All of these means deterrence.

 

[HGV]

Hence, I've always believed, the only way to add another layer to this issue, would be to remove the 2000km range limit bullshit completely, and start stockpiling conventional IRBMs. This bullshit of the limit needs to be removed, and has dire consequences and hopefully they've already removed it secretly years ago.

Having the capability to launch 100+ nuclear-armed ICBMs and convincing the Americans that, in extremis, Iran would be willing to do this, could plausibly establish some form of deterrence.

But actually striking the US mainland with any weapon (even conventional) would be a truly suicidal idea. Nothing will unite the American population (generally extremely patriotic and bloodthirsty) better than a direct military strike by Iran against the US mainland.

The IRI is extremely cautious with its actions and doesn't want to risk losing power no matter what, so they would never do such a thing (fortunately).

 

[Stryker1982]

Having the capability to launch 100+ nuclear-armed ICBMs and convincing the Americans that, in extremis, Iran would be willing to do this, could plausibly establish some form of deterrence.

But actually striking the US mainland with any weapon (even conventional) would be a truly suicidal idea. Nothing will unite the American population (generally extremely patriotic and bloodthirsty) better than a direct military strike by Iran against the US mainland.

The IRI is extremely cautious with its actions and doesn't want to risk losing power no matter what, so they would never do such a thing (fortunately).

Conventional IRBMs were for European bases, America is too far, and also such a thing as you noted, bad idea and also extremely expensive and ineffective as well.

 

[HGV]

Conventional IRBMs were for European bases, America is too far, and also such a thing as you noted, bad idea and also extremely expensive and ineffective as well.

That doesn't make sense, the rest of your post was about the US military and escalation ladder etc. What does Europe have to do with it?

 

[Stryker1982]

That doesn't make sense, the rest of your post was about the US military and escalation ladder etc. What does Europe have to do with it?

You're kidding?

Supplies are ferried to US bases in Europe, and direct flights will occur from there as well.

 

[Muhammed45]

Some of you guys here have a bit of a delusion when it comes to US military. They have alot of capability and full control of the escalation ladder.

We know what Iran's limits are, and destroying bases in the initial phase does not mean the end of US military power. They still have alot of strategic bombers. Once these bases are leveled, their are no more targets, i.e. they will just continue using strategic bombers from long ranges without any recourse directly on Iranian mainland. Can Iran respond to the US mainland? (no). This by default means, Iran will lose decades worth of infrastructure that will take billions to rebuild, while the US only takes military and equipment casualties. This is what the end of the escalation ladder leads towards.

Hence, I've always believed, the only way to add another layer to this issue, would be to remove the 2000km range limit bullshit completely, and start stockpiling conventional IRBMs. This bullshit of the limit needs to be removed, and has dire consequences and hopefully they've already removed it secretly years ago.

Please stop with this inferiority complex of yours.

Yes, Iran can target US mainland. It is a matter of fact that USA is too big to be stopped by bunch of warheads. It will only have psychological effect on American people and Americans won't risk something like that.

IRGC general said that we have ICBMs indirectly to target every spot on earth. I can find you his exact words if necessary.

 

[Arash1991]

1. One of US states, in fact, the most important one, is well within our reach, Israel.

2.Even against weak Ukraine with limited air defense, Russia doesn't dare to use it's strategic bombers. just stand off cruise missiles from their own soil.

3.Lots of energy infrastructures within middle east belongs to US companies, two strategic water ways is under our control, all of these means collapse of US economy.

4. Iran will activate it's proxy forces and US forces within thousands of kilometers will come under daily attacks, with no effective support.

5. US will loose all of it's nay within our range, while their entire navy around the world can be attacked by submarines, and I assure you there will be countries who will help un on that (for their own good).


All of these means deterrence.

Let's face it, we often assume that wars are fought with high-tech weapons all the time, but this is not always the case. For instance, let's consider a scenario where Iran destroys US military bases in the Middle East and blocks all trade routes, pushing the US Navy back to 1500 or 2000 km behind Iranian waters. In such situations, we must be realistic: Iran may not be able to destroy the entire US Navy in one big blow.

A war doesn't just break out overnight. Usually, it announces itself somehow, and especially if the US is planning a surprise attack, they would have already put their assets at a distance and have restructured the air force bases so that minimal damage occurs. Additionally, military bases would have been largely emptied in anticipation of the attack. It is essential to note that the enemy is not a static punching bag that does not move; in combat, the opponent also moves and calculates.

If Iran carries out a surprise attack on the US at a time when the US does not expect an attack, then maximum damage would undoubtedly be possible. However, in any case, a war means that both sides will be hurt, and both sides will have to take it. It is sometimes assumed that Iran is an impenetrable fortress where every fly is caught in the air. However, the US will also find gaps.

Even if the US takes its long-range bombers, they can still only act to a limited extent and cannot win a war on their own. Ultimately, modern weapons can be used up very quickly, and a phase will occur where factors such as motivation, morale of the troops, the number of recruits, and willingness to sacrifice become crucial.

It is essential to remember that we live in a time when all the modern weapons are only weapons of the first hour, unless kept as a strategic reserve until the end. For example, did you know that an Abrahams tank can take several months to a year to produce? Similarly, the German Panther, which is now brand new, is a device that is handmade for industrial conditions. An F-35 takes 24 to 36 months from order to delivery, and other weapon systems take similar periods.

If the hypothetical war between Iran and the US is not ended quickly, and the most valuable units are used up, it will depend on entirely different factors. The war will be fought on a completely different level, and it may be necessary to fall back on quickly producible, readily available, and cheap mass systems. Iran is treading this path alongside its high-tech projects, such as mass drones, a large number of speedboats, and possibly future combat robots and Basiji units, where 20 million can be mobilized.

It is like a chess game, with different phases: the opening, the middlegame, and the Endgame. At each stage of the game/war, different resources, units, tactics, and strategies are required.
In the opening you usually try to quickly control the center and create a good starting position for the middlegame.
You can also play the opening defensively to provoke the opponent to attack prematurely, etc. In the middlegame it is about the achieved position from the opening and to exploit the advantage you have gained, or to make up for losses. You try to break through the front and act on a tactical level and launch attacks.
In the endgame you usually have lost most of the resources and there are a few pawns, usually also heavy pieces like the tower left, maybe a knight left. The field is then very open and offers plenty of room for maneuvering. At each stage of the game / war, different resources, units and tactics as well as strategies are required.
Therefore, it is crucial to analyze which phase of the war you are in and what means to use. When the opening phase is over, and all modern weapons have been fired, only limited quantities remain, and one can no longer be generous with the quantities.

Consequently, the following factors are essential: the morality of the population, the morale of the troops, who has the advantages of terrain and weather on their side, who has the better generals, who is able to sustain logistics?

 

[tsunset]

Some of you guys here have a bit of a delusion when it comes to US military. They have alot of capability and full control of the escalation ladder.

We know what Iran's limits are, and destroying bases in the initial phase does not mean the end of US military power. They still have alot of strategic bombers. Once these bases are leveled, their are no more targets, i.e. they will just continue using strategic bombers from long ranges without any recourse directly on Iranian mainland. Can Iran respond to the US mainland? (no). This by default means, Iran will lose decades worth of infrastructure that will take billions to rebuild, while the US only takes military and equipment casualties. This is what the end of the escalation ladder leads towards.

Hence, I've always believed, the only way to add another layer to this issue, would be to remove the 2000km range limit bullshit completely, and start stockpiling conventional IRBMs. This bullshit of the limit needs to be removed, and has dire consequences and hopefully they've already removed it secretly years ago.

Hitting U.S mainland isn't just about destroying some of their buildings/complex or just killing the maximum soldier/people as possible using missiles

The most critical thing if US mainland is struck, is that the US would live what they never lived in their whole history, being hit by a conventional foreign military in US homeland and this would be mental-shattering to them, western country already have the WW2 trauma and this would be the worse they could imagine, their people will immediately know that they could have been hit worse than that and just kill any people in the US if Iran wanted or imagine if Iran replace a conventional warhead with chemical gas or a nuclear warhead, and the American people would immediately lose the trust they had into their military for centuries, the "invincible U.S army that can never be struck at homeland and invading easily the whole world like earth is US sandbox"

When we look at the mental damage that the 9/11 did, US being struck by any kind of weapon whether ballistic missiles or even just a mortar would either trigger a nuclear blackmail from the US, or reconsidering their operation, triggering their maximum level of awareness

The same goes for any NATO country, specially UK, Germany, Italia and France

 

[glablo]

In the Gulf War, the U.S. military dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in just 42 days, destroying the entire country.
Complete destruction of all electrical infrastructure, vital factories, oil-related facilities, oil tankers, and military centers.
Iraq has literally fallen back to medieval levels as civilization has collapsed.
This is the equivalent of 170,000 Russian Kalibr cruise missiles!!.
That is more than 300 times the bombing Russia has done over the course of a year, or 4,000 times the pace per month.
This is the destructive power of the U.S. military, and we must face reality.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 3,000 missiles and guided bombs were dropped on Baghdad on the first day alone.
This is not ten times more than the attack that took the Russians a year to carry out.
The Iraqis instantly lost the will to fight and became irresistible.

Moreover, today, there are many fighter aircraft with powerful ground attack capabilities, such as the F-15E and F-35.
The order of magnitude of attack capability is different from those days when we had to rely on old and poor attack aircraft.
It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. military claimed it could completely destroy Iran in three months.

 

[lydian fall]

In the Gulf War, the U.S. military dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in just 42 days, destroying the entire country.
Complete destruction of all electrical infrastructure, vital factories, oil-related facilities, oil tankers, and military centers.
Iraq has literally fallen back to medieval levels as civilization has collapsed.
This is the equivalent of 170,000 Russian Kalibr cruise missiles!!.
That is more than 300 times the bombing Russia has done over the course of a year, or 4,000 times the pace per month.
This is the destructive power of the U.S. military, and we must face reality.

In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 3,000 missiles and guided bombs were dropped on Baghdad on the first day alone.
This is not ten times more than the attack that took the Russians a year to carry out.
The Iraqis instantly lost the will to fight and became irresistible.

Moreover, today, there are many fighter aircraft with powerful ground attack capabilities, such as the F-15E and F-35.
The order of magnitude of attack capability is different from those days when we had to rely on old and poor attack aircraft.
It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. military claimed it could completely destroy Iran in three months.

U.S only fight those who can not fight back

Military power of today Iran is no not comparable to Taliban, Baath Iraq, Libya, etc...

Even U.S didn't dare to attack a small country like North Korea because of consequences

 

[tsunset]

We are comparing a 1991 war with something that may not even happen and hopefully not happen.

Could someone mention how many tons of bombs including chemical agents the US dropped on Vietnam? I am pretty sure it is more than the Gulf War. Did the US won that war in 1-3 months? 1970-91 is only 20 year of difference, 1991 and 2023 is more than 30year.

Bombing missions of the Vietnam War

A visual record of the largest aerial bombardment in history

storymaps.arcgis.com

Between 1965 and 1975, the United States and its allies dropped more than 7.5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—double the amount dropped on Europe and Asia during World War II. Pound for pound, it remains the largest aerial bombardment in human history.

7.5 million tons of bombs, 85 times more than the Gulf War, did the US and its allies won this war?

Comparing the Gulf War with Iran would make no sense, Iraq was under genocidal sanctions to then bomb them again into oblivion, the US was not alone, but had all their European colleagues and a lot of other countries following them.

By this we should at least compare a NATO "invasion" of Iran, not a US alone with meaningless states such as UAE or Israel and take in fact that we are in 2023, in Iran, against not only Iran but actors accross the world including Hezbollah and maybe PMF, which are massive groups.

The American army branches are mainly composed of studs, American studs that enrolled after viewing Tom Cruise film in the cinema and playing Call of Duty, playing Minecraft inside the aircraft carrier cabin.

Since today, America neither NATO made a non-asymetrical war, this is very easy to bring A-10, Apache and AC-130s, it will surely make a lot of bombs and missiles launched in an uncontested airspace with the only risks being alone Iraqi soldiers armed with Strela manpads.

Do not fall into the United States propaganda which resemble to Israel's one, hammering inside the head of people that they are invincible and that they could invade Iran in 3 months and shut it completely down and back to the stone age without the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[thesaint]

F-16's performance is much lower than the Su-27 - Ukrainian pilot

According to Ukrainian Air Force pilot Lieutenant Colonel Fischer Dmitry Vilhelmovich, the performance of the US-made F-16 is much lower than that of his Su-27

bulgarianmilitary.com

 

[Stryker1982]

Please stop with this inferiority complex of yours.

Yes, Iran can target US mainland. It is a matter of fact that USA is too big to be stopped by bunch of warheads. It will only have psychological effect on American people and Americans won't risk something like that.

IRGC general said that we have ICBMs indirectly to target every spot on earth. I can find you his exact words if necessary.

It's simple logic.

They will fire 10,000 missiles at Iran. Iran will fire 10,000 missiles back. The difference is that infrastructure inside Iran will be destroy, and bases 8000km from their borders will be destroyed. This is completely unfavorable.

I know IRGC fully technologically ready to make ICBMs, the question is how many? You should also remember what Hajizadeh said as well. He said full scale war with USA will throw everything back atleast 20 years. This is why I've always been infavour of nuclear missiles, so that these costs do not have to be paided.

Spend $300 million dollars to build an ICBM fleet of nuclear warheads, to avoid having to spend billions in just repairing infrastructure and re-arming military after a fight.

We are comparing a 1991 war with something that may not even happen and hopefully not happen.

Could someone mention how many tons of bombs including chemical agents the US dropped on Vietnam? I am pretty sure it is more than the Gulf War. Did the US won that war in 1-3 months? 1970-91 is only 20 year of difference, 1991 and 2023 is more than 30year.

Bombing missions of the Vietnam War

A visual record of the largest aerial bombardment in history

storymaps.arcgis.com

7.5 million tons of bombs, 85 times more than the Gulf War, did the US and its allies won this war?

Comparing the Gulf War with Iran would make no sense, Iraq was under genocidal sanctions to then bomb them again into oblivion, the US was not alone, but had all their European colleagues and a lot of other countries following them.

By this we should at least compare a NATO "invasion" of Iran, not a US alone with meaningless states such as UAE or Israel and take in fact that we are in 2023, in Iran, against not only Iran but actors accross the world including Hezbollah and maybe PMF, which are massive groups.

The American army branches are mainly composed of studs, American studs that enrolled after viewing Tom Cruise film in the cinema and playing Call of Duty, playing Minecraft inside the aircraft carrier cabin.

Since today, America neither NATO made a non-asymetrical war, this is very easy to bring A-10, Apache and AC-130s, it will surely make a lot of bombs and missiles launched in an uncontested airspace with the only risks being alone Iraqi soldiers armed with Strela manpads.

Do not fall into the United States propaganda which resemble to Israel's one, hammering inside the head of people that they are invincible and that they could invade Iran in 3 months and shut it completely down and back to the stone age without the use of nuclear weapons.

One of the key differences was the simple fact that US had completely control of the air, and smooth operations in airfields. This will not be the case with Iran. Iran will kill their ability to smoothly operate in the air. But what this does tell you is that if the USA has full access and full smoothness of operations without disruption, it can use vast amounts of munitions that cannot be countered.