Pentagon report says Iran is fielding anti-ship ballistic missiles

[giger]

300km is not enough, you need to increase its range to at least 1500km with the capability of carrying a single 1-2 tons warhead.

we have uavs armed with anti ship missiles for higher range

 

[rmi5]

مشکل ما ظاهر هست ... وقتى نمى تونيم يه رژه ى درست برگزار کنيم همين ميشه

همه نسبت به ما پررو شدن

Ya'ni alaan moshkel faghat ye rezheh hast?
Ya'ni alaan air force va army va ... hameh OK hastand va moshkel rezheh hast?!!! Are you kidding?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

we have uavs armed with anti ship missiles for higher range

The UAV cannot carry a ballistic missile.

 

[giger]

The UAV cannot carry a ballistic missile.

no it can't why you need ballistic when you can use cheaper one

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

no it can't why you need ballistic when you can use cheaper one

The ballistic missile can have a much greater range.

 

[donkeypunch]

Another Iranian plywood toy ?

 

[Luftwaffe]

With it's military.

You know, I've had this exact conversation before, and I get the feeling that you won't ever agree that Pakistan can defend itself better than Iran can.

So I'm not even going to bother.

Pakistan would only give tough time on ground offensive but eventually the options would reduce maybe as a last resort use tactical nukes on its own land against an enemy that has come from far off, in Air Battle or Naval Battle Pakistan would lose outright against US/NATO. Lets not fool ourselves into and should only discuss whom we can really challenge not US/not NATO.

Please do good research before penning down like that; Pakistan Army has lost soldiers/officers unfortunately like ants to those terrorists in huge numbers in my opinion we are missing some plans which needs to be revisited, we can't even establish proper concrete protected Posts against taliban attacks, A large sophisticated over whelming enemy has always plans see the wider picture WWII Germany vs Allied Forces. The only smart way is to make friends Internationally and cooperate but on equal terms for that Pakistan needs to be strong economically.

 

[That Guy]

Pakistan would only give tough time on ground offensive but eventually the options would reduce maybe as a last resort use tactical nukes on its own land against an enemy that has come from far off, in Air Battle or Naval Battle Pakistan would lose outright against US/NATO. Lets not fool ourselves into and should only discuss whom we can really challenge not US/not NATO.

Please do good research before penning down like that; Pakistan Army has lost soldiers/officers unfortunately like ants to those terrorists in huge numbers in my opinion we are missing some plans which needs to be revisited, we can't even establish proper concrete protected Posts against taliban attacks, A large sophisticated over whelming enemy has always plans see the wider picture WWII Germany vs Allied Forces. The only smart way is to make friends Internationally and cooperate but on equal terms for that Pakistan needs to be strong economically.

I feel like you didn't read my other posts. I've pretty much written a similar scenario to what you have.

 

[giger]

Another Iranian plywood toy ?

usa strategy is based on nuke weapons like soviet without nukes your battle ships and planes are plastic toys

 

[SALMAN F]

Another Iranian plywood toy ?

This toy can turn any of the american Zionist ship into ash

 

[SOHEIL]

Another Iranian plywood toy ?

 

[SOHEIL]

The UAV cannot carry a ballistic missile.

Cruise missiles ... Not BMs !

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Cruise missiles ... Not BMs !

The long range cruise missiles are only suitable for the fixed targets, but not for the moving targets.

When you reach the initial target location, the ship will already move away, since the cruise missiles are not fast enough that given the target no time to react.

That's why the LACM version of Tomahawk has a much longer range than its ASCM version.