The US military assesses it could cripple the Iranian Navy in minutes and destroy it in 2 days

[Ich]

What exactly was my lie?



Link the report please.

Also, regardless of what you believe, fake or not, he was told that there was a chemical weapons attack, and he acted on it. If he was a warmonger, he would have invaded syria and occupied syria, he did not.

Also, the US (along with most of the world) does not recognize Assad as the leader of Syria. The US in particular considers the SDF as the only legitimate force in Syria. The SDF invited them, so they went. Legally, it works.

Whether you like it or not, being a superpower let's them bent the rules to suit their interests. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be a super power.

It's the same reasoning that Russia used in Georgia, Ukraine's Crimea and Chechnya.



We're not talking about the US, we're talking about Trump.

But this comment just proves your entire argument is based upon anti-americanism, not facts.


Again, you're proving my point.


Once again, we're talking about Trump, not the us, but sure, keep proving my point. Lmao.

This entire comment was just plain clownish.

Wow, no wonder that the world turns into a shithole...let us stop the discussion here.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Iraq used al-Husayn variant in the Persian Gulf War (1991) to strike at intended targets in Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain respectively. This variant was much better than the original Scud-B.

Al-hussein is a hack of Scud-b . they used it to attack Iranian cities like tehran and isfahan and I assure you the only thing better about it was it had more range otherwise it's accuracy and precision was far worse than scud and it had a habit of breaking into two part in-flight and that reduced its percision .

See above, Iranian propaganda bot.

I won't talk about the short range missiles but I say to everyone who think al-Hussein or Al-Abbas were precise or accurate that he need to check his facts. They were even worse than Scud .

 

[AmirPatriot]

Denial... Look at that GIF and say again "lucky shots".

You live in the past.

It's good. His ilk will never see the face of reason. So they might as well underestimate us. They'll regret it in due course.

 

[GWXP]

"Iraqi armed forces were able to subject Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to a total of 88 (ballistic missile) strikes in 1991.

88 primitive missiles with poor accuracy----they were able to threaten only area targets like cities--they were a weapon of terror----no surprise Saddam --knowing poor accuracy of his missiles and inability to destroy high value targets --instead preferred to attack Tel Aviv and Riyadh

88 primitive missiles.....Iran is estimated to have more than 2000 ballistic missiles with pinpoint accuracy.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-attack-ballistic-missiles

This is Pentagon estimate---in reality Iran might have even more missiles.

The key word here is "pinpoint accuracy"---meaning, unlike Saddam, Iran can target even your house and a room where you are sitting from 500-1000 km away

Let us concentrate on this part: "These weapons posit a threat to stationary targets."

First, Iran has ballistic missiles that can hit moving targets like ships

Read about Bundeswehr's reaserch of Iranian Khalije fars anti-ship ballistic missile

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/effectiveness-of-khalije-fars-anti-ship-ballistic-missile.644456/

Second, if you can destroy stationary targets like aircraft shelters, fuel depots, power plants, desalination plants, oil refineris, command centers---(something Saddam with his primitive Scuds was incapable of doing)----you can win the war

If you are attacking a military base with ballistic missiles (assuming conventional warheads), it makes sense to subject the military base to a volley of ballistic missiles in order to have a higher chance of scoring meaningful hits.

This is true for Saddam's Scuds with their 1km CEP--you have to launch 20 missiles with 1km CEP and hope that at least one of them will hit something

In Iran's case---of 10 missiles fired at Ain-Al Assad---9 missiles hit their targets with 5m accuracy

Such an accuracy is a game changer.

If I take your lame argument at face value,

Iranian ballistic missiles do not hold much military value either because even a volley of them failed to achieve much in the Iraqi Al-Asad military base.

Please, don't show your ignorance.---Ain Al Assad was a demonstration of precision....next time---fuel depots, runways, and expensive aircrafts themselves will be targeted and destroyed.

And bear in mind that there wasn't a Patriot battery stationed near this military base to counter incoming ballistic missiles.

Patriot?
This is an article by Jeffrey Lewis----I'm sure that due to your ignorance you don't know who is Jeffrey Lewis---probably another "TV expert" who is less reliable than you "analysis"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/

Patriots can't even shoot down primitive Yemeni Scuds.

This is Saudi Patriot--destroying Saudi cities instead of enemy target LOL.

So instead of "making your own analysis" you better listen to what specialists like Uzi Rubin or Jeffrey Lewis say....

Publicly acknowledged range of a weapon is an irrelevant point to make. Do you think that a missile with 80 KM flight range does not kill when scoring a hit?

Iranian moppets have a one-dimensional view of military conflict.

You call radar guided Silkworm anti-ship missile a "cruise missile" that can be used against US---they can be used only against ships and due to their primitive radars---their radars were easily jammed and fooled by chaff and decoys.

If you want to see a real cruise missile----this is it

And if you want to see it's performance----learn about attacks against Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities in Saudi Arabia---Patriot AD didn't helped the Saudis

Emphasis mine

What do you think will happen if Iran is subjected to overwhelming firepower on that scale or bigger? When Iranian military positions and bases, Command & Communications (C&C) infrastructure and more, will be under a thorough assault from multiple directions? This is the SCENARIO that I am alluding to in this thread, that in no way or form Iranian armed forces would be able to subject American military positions across the Middle East to hundreds of (ballistic missile) strikes while finding themselves on the receiving end of thousands of precision-guided munitions each day. Iran will loose much of its firepower in a matter of few days as alluded to by me in my posts in this thread as well as the article cited in the first post of this thread. This is assuming a full-scale war between USA and Iran. - (2)

First, Iran took a lesson from US wars in Iraq and prepared itself. Iran knows that it will have to deal with a country with superior firepower.

Second, instead of posting ignorant nonsense--- you better study 2006 war in Lebanon and answer a question: How come that despite full control of the skies and vastly superior firepower, Israeli air force FAILED to destroy Hezbollah's Command and Control/military infrastructure/---FAILED to stop rocket launches from tiny territory of Lebanon even despite full control of the skies? FAILED to defeat Hezbollah.

Hezbollah Rockets were falling on Israel up until the end of 2006 war even despite Hezbollah was on the "receiving end of thousands of precision-guided munitions each day"

Iraq had managed to develop two types of TBMs namely Al-Samoud-II and Al-Fat'h after 1998.

And Yemen also has its own ballistic missile: Burkan-1 and Burkan-2

Do you realy believe that third world countries like Yemen and Iraq of 1991 can make its own missiles?

They just take a Scud they bought from abroad--add some light modifications and use them as low accuracy weapons of terror against cities.

This is why true CEP of Iraqi TBM variant (Al-Fat'h) is largely unclear in public records (50 - 150 m).

LOL. You have no idea of what are you talking about.

Making a 50m CEP missile is of enormous technological challenge....The best and brightest minds of USSR and USA were breaking their heads in trying to solve the problem of low accuracy of ballistic missiles.

It was only after satellite navigation and new generation of complex gyroscopes----- high level of precision of ballistic missiles was achieved in first world countries.

Even Iranian missiles from 2010 had a CEP of 500m and only recently Iran managed to achieve 5m accuracy.

Saddam with his third world technological and industrial base in no way could have achieved a 50m accuracy in 1990s.

 

[LeGenD]

Al-hussein is a hack of Scud-b . they used it to attack Iranian cities like tehran and isfahan and I assure you the only thing better about it was it had more range otherwise it's accuracy and precision was far worse than scud and it had a habit of breaking into two part in-flight and that reduced its percision .

I won't talk about the short range missiles but I say to everyone who think al-Hussein or Al-Abbas were precise or accurate that he need to check his facts. They were even worse than Scud .

Iraqi engineers claimed a CEP of 500 m for Al-Husayn derivative. Yes, this derivative had its fair share of problems including the probability of veering off course, but the idea was to subject a distant military base (a large stationary target of value) to a volley of these ballistic missiles in order to score something meaningful - similar to how Iran attacked Iraqi Al-Asad military base.

Iraqi TBMs were far more accurate and stable than the much larger Al-Husayn and they weren't exactly vintage Scud-B and FROG-7 - I expanded on this aspect in my earlier response. Some members here are not into doing their homework and rather try to discredit other members in exchanges who might happen to know better than them; I have an issue with this foolish 'sense of superiority' in these members.

Now I am not trying to compare Iraqi and Iranian ballistic missiles in terms of accuracy and such. I simply addressed an argument of a member here in its valid context. Some members misread my posts unfortunately.

Iranian ballistic missiles are modern with superior accuracy - this is not even an argument, but ballistic missiles are largely suitable for attacking large stationary targets - this aspect haven't changed and will not change anytime soon. Cruise missiles, combat aircraft and UAV are far better suited to cripple a military base on the other hand.

 

[Sineva]

The tactically smart thing would have been runway denial. But if you want to talk about precision, here is a lesson for you, who do not know what you are talking about...

Iran will have nothing but imagination, as you posited, about destroying our F-16s.

Runway denial is a skill clearly Iran do not have. When I was active duty, a fully laden F-16, geared for ground strikes, can take off in 2/3 the distance specified in peacetime. The illustration above is about runway repairs and the yellow line indicate the minimum operational runway distance. Now contrast that with the Serb air base. The Iranian Air Force WILL be grounded.

Why would the iranians bother with runway denial when their weapons clearly have a level of accuracy above what is required for that and can instead just directly target the hardened shelters that the enemies aircraft are hangared in.
In fact prior to the emad program and the development of highly accurate terminally guided warheads,you had a variety of sub munition type warheads that were developed by iran for the purpose of runway denial and airbase attack.
You seem to be so utterly focused on the iranian airforce for some strange reason,even tho it should be plainly obvious that its offensive role in any future conflict would likely be extremely limited at best and that instead its main role would probably be one of primarily back up,for instance dealing with any leakers that managed to survive the main sam based air defences.
Your opponent in any future iran-us regional conflict is NOT going to be the iriaf or the irgc-af,its going to be the iranian missile forces and the newly developed ucav forces,because these will be the ones tasked with the primary goal of destroying us regional air power,ideally on the ground along with its airbases.
I think that at this point certainly that any future us-iranian regional conflict very likely ISNT going to be the operation desert storm 2.0 that you seem to think it is.

 

[Philosopher]

See above, Iranian propaganda bot.

All that post but not a single statement/ proof for that 50m CEP claim. Like I said, you're just making up your own "facts".

 

[LeGenD]

All that post but not a single statement/ proof for that 50m CEP claim. Like I said, you're just making up your own "facts".

I might have misread a statement in a source - eyes can betray sometimes, therefore, apologies for this claim.

Nevertheless, 150 meters CEP for Iraqi Al-Fat'h TBM is mentioned in reliable reports. Iraq used this TBM variant to strike at coalition forces in Kuwait in 2003 (~16 in total); this TBM was/is neither Scud-B and nor FROG-7.

 

[mangekyo]

88 primitive missiles with poor accuracy----they were able to threaten only area targets like cities--they were a weapon of terror----no surprise Saddam --knowing poor accuracy of his missiles and inability to destroy high value targets --instead preferred to attack Tel Aviv and Riyadh

88 primitive missiles.....Iran is estimated to have more than 2000 ballistic missiles with pinpoint accuracy.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-attack-ballistic-missiles

This is Pentagon estimate---in reality Iran might have even more missiles.

The key word here is "pinpoint accuracy"---meaning, unlike Saddam, Iran can target even your house and a room where you are sitting from 500-1000 km away



First, Iran has ballistic missiles that can hit moving targets like ships

Read about Bundeswehr's reaserch of Iranian Khalije fars anti-ship ballistic missile

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/effectiveness-of-khalije-fars-anti-ship-ballistic-missile.644456/

Second, if you can destroy stationary targets like aircraft shelters, fuel depots, power plants, desalination plants, oil refineris, command centers---(something Saddam with his primitive Scuds was incapable of doing)----you can win the war



This is true for Saddam's Scuds with their 1km CEP--you have to launch 20 missiles with 1km CEP and hope that at least one of them will hit something

In Iran's case---of 10 missiles fired at Ain-Al Assad---9 missiles hit their targets with 5m accuracy

Such an accuracy is a game changer.


Please, don't show your ignorance.---Ain Al Assad was a demonstration of precision....next time---fuel depots, runways, and expensive aircrafts themselves will be targeted and destroyed.


Patriot?
This is an article by Jeffrey Lewis----I'm sure that due to your ignorance you don't know who is Jeffrey Lewis---probably another "TV expert" who is less reliable than you "analysis"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/

Patriots can't even shoot down primitive Yemeni Scuds.

This is Saudi Patriot--destroying Saudi cities instead of enemy target LOL.

So instead of "making your own analysis" you better listen to what specialists like Uzi Rubin or Jeffrey Lewis say....



You call radar guided Silkworm anti-ship missile a "cruise missile" that can be used against US---they can be used only against ships and due to their primitive radars---their radars were easily jammed and fooled by chaff and decoys.

If you want to see a real cruise missile----this is it

And if you want to see it's performance----learn about attacks against Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities in Saudi Arabia---Patriot AD didn't helped the Saudis



First, Iran took a lesson from US wars in Iraq and prepared itself. Iran knows that it will have to deal with a country with superior firepower.

Second, instead of posting ignorant nonsense--- you better study 2006 war in Lebanon and answer a question: How come that despite full control of the skies and vastly superior firepower, Israeli air force FAILED to destroy Hezbollah's Command and Control/military infrastructure/---FAILED to stop rocket launches from tiny territory of Lebanon even despite full control of the skies? FAILED to defeat Hezbollah.

Hezbollah Rockets were falling on Israel up until the end of 2006 war even despite Hezbollah was on the "receiving end of thousands of precision-guided munitions each day"



And Yemen also has its own ballistic missile: Burkan-1 and Burkan-2

Do you realy believe that third world countries like Yemen and Iraq of 1991 can make its own missiles?

They just take a Scud they bought from abroad--add some light modifications and use them as low accuracy weapons of terror against cities.



LOL. You have no idea of what are you talking about.

Making a 50m CEP missile is of enormous technological challenge....The best and brightest minds of USSR and USA were breaking their heads in trying to solve the problem of low accuracy of ballistic missiles.

It was only after satellite navigation and new generation of complex gyroscopes----- high level of precision of ballistic missiles was achieved in first world countries.

Even Iranian missiles from 2010 had a CEP of 500m and only recently Iran managed to achieve 5m accuracy.

Saddam with his third world technological and industrial base in no way could have achieved a 50m accuracy in 1990s.

This is intellectual rape

 

[Mithridates]

Iranian moppets have a one-dimensional view of military conflict.

That's the most accurate sentence I've seen. I'll use it from now on.

my dear ... friends this article by your fellow american friend is one dimensional view of conflict at the first place.

I might have misread a statement in a source - eyes can betray sometimes, therefore, apologies for this claim.

Nevertheless, 150 meters CEP for Iraqi Al-Fat'h TBM is mentioned in reliable reports. Iraq used this TBM variant to strike at coalition forces in Kuwait in 2003 (~16 in total); this TBM was/is neither Scud-B and nor FROG-7.

let me put it this way so you can understand, me and u are at fight, i have 1 fateh-313 missile you have 25 al-fatah missiles. my chance to kill you with my single fateh is more than you with your 25 missiles. was it simple enough for u?? we do not feel superiority to US, right now we are superior to US.

 

[Stryker1982]

similar to how Iran attacked Iraqi Al-Asad military base.

It's not similar when Iran pinpoint strikes targets........stop living in denial.

 

[LeGenD]

1/2

88 primitive missiles with poor accuracy----they were able to threaten only area targets like cities--they were a weapon of terror----no surprise Saddam --knowing poor accuracy of his missiles and inability to destroy high value targets --instead preferred to attack Tel Aviv and Riyadh

Again, the incident involving one of these ballistic missiles on 25-02-1991: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-26-mn-1889-story.html

- is very telling.

That wasn't the only ballistic missile which approached Saudi Dhahran International Airport housing American military barracks back in 1991, additional number of ballistic missiles also approached this airport at different points in time (during the course of war) but Patriot defenses neutralized the more threatening ones which might have scored meaningful hits otherwise. These defenses were however down on 25-02-1991 and tragedy occurred.

See Table 3 in this link: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/scud_info/scud_info_s04.htm

Ballistic missiles posit a threat to large stationary targets including military bases; a volley of ballistic missiles will increase the probability of scoring meaningful hits on a military base. This much should be clear to anybody with a functioning brain by now.

Saddam regime subjected Israeli cities to ballistic missile strikes in 1991 in an effort to drag Israel into the war - a move which might have distracted coalition forces from their mission. Although, Israel was furious but did not take the bait due to intense American pressure behind-the-scenes. In no way or form, these strikes are instructive in regards to the viability of Iraqi al-Husayn ballistic missiles to threaten military bases; strikes on Saudi Dhahran International Airport however are/were.

88 primitive missiles.....Iran is estimated to have more than 2000 ballistic missiles with pinpoint accuracy.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-attack-ballistic-missiles

This is Pentagon estimate---in reality Iran might have even more missiles.

The key word here is "pinpoint accuracy"---meaning, unlike Saddam, Iran can target even your house and a room where you are sitting from 500-1000 km away

You need to revisit your assessment.

Link: https://www.eurasiareview.com/09092...nd-to-chinas-conventional-deterrent-analysis/

First, Iran has ballistic missiles that can hit moving targets like ships

Read about Bundeswehr's reaserch of Iranian Khalije fars anti-ship ballistic missile

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/effectiveness-of-khalije-fars-anti-ship-ballistic-missile.644456/

No, ballistic missiles cannot hit 'moving' ships.

You can clearly see Khalije Fars ASBM striking a 'stationary' target in the sea. Target(s) which are apparently defenseless - cannot move at high speeds, cannot maneuver, and do not have sophisticated defenses to counter external threats of any type.

Try something like that on an American Arleigh Burke class destroyer, and you will be severely disappointed.

Second, if you can destroy stationary targets like aircraft shelters, fuel depots, power plants, desalination plants, oil refineris, command centers---(something Saddam with his primitive Scuds was incapable of doing)----you can win the war

Depends upon which country Iran is taking its chances with.

Such strikes cannot render American war-machine, and its capability to destroy Iran, ineffective. American war-machine is an expeditionary force with mobile C&C infrastructure to manage military operations in distant lands.

Understand the difference.

This is true for Saddam's Scuds with their 1km CEP--you have to launch 20 missiles with 1km CEP and hope that at least one of them will hit something

In Iran's case---of 10 missiles fired at Ain-Al Assad---9 missiles hit their targets with 5m accuracy

Such an accuracy is a game changer.

Again, what have you achieved with those strikes on Iraqi Al-Asad military base? This military base is largely optimized for managing Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, and it is evidently lacking in high-end defensive arrangements in its present form because ISIS does not posit much of a threat to this military base as is.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1214899360267407360

Trump administration allowed Iranian armed forces to strike at Iraqi Al-Asad military base as a matter of compensation for assassinating Iranian general Qassem Soleimani (1). They were monitoring developments within and around Iran in real-time otherwise; they could neutralize Iranian TELs on the move if they wanted to but they didn't. Trump administration is preoccupied with politics back home; Iran is safe for a while.

To be fair to Iran, Iraqi Al-Asad military base represented a low-risk target to IRGC. They even alerted Iraqi PM to potential strikes on this military base in advance.

Please, don't show your ignorance.---Ain Al Assad was a demonstration of precision....next time---fuel depots, runways, and expensive aircrafts themselves will be targeted and destroyed.

There might NOT be a 'next time' for Iran to demonstrate much. Iranian attack on Iraqi Al-Asad military base is not really instructive in regards to how an actual war with US will pan out - refer to (1) above.

You want to prove something? Take your chances with Prince Sultan military base in Saudi Arabia. This is one of the largest and better protected military bases in the Middle East. Better is an understatement in fact - this military base is housing two Patriot batteries and a THAAD battery at present (excellent radar coverage). Americans have stationed lot of firepower in this military base.

 

[LeGenD]

2/2

Patriot?
This is an article by Jeffrey Lewis----I'm sure that due to your ignorance you don't know who is Jeffrey Lewis---probably another "TV expert" who is less reliable than you "analysis"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/

Patriots can't even shoot down primitive Yemeni Scuds.

This is Saudi Patriot--destroying Saudi cities instead of enemy target LOL.

So instead of "making your own analysis" you better listen to what specialists like Uzi Rubin or Jeffrey Lewis say....

I pity your ignorance.

FYI: https://www.defensenews.com/digital...atriots-intercepted-over-100-tbms-since-2015/

Of-course, there are gaps in Saudi defenses which can be exploited by a well-armed adversary. Recommended reading: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...ugging-the-gaps-in-saudi-arabias-air-defenses

American-exclusive Patriot defense systems armed with a mix of new generation PAC-2 GEM/t and PAC-3 class interceptors, are expected to be better configured than the exported items (more extensive radar coverage), and some of these are fully committed to protect select American military bases in the Middle East; these systems will definitely deliver in this capacity when the need arises.

Following live-intercept testing was conducted in 2019.

You call radar guided Silkworm anti-ship missile a "cruise missile" that can be used against US---they can be used only against ships and due to their primitive radars---their radars were easily jammed and fooled by chaff and decoys.

If you want to see a real cruise missile----this is it

And if you want to see it's performance----learn about attacks against Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities in Saudi Arabia---Patriot AD didn't helped the Saudis

General knowledge time.

Styx family of cruise missiles:-

HY-1/CSSC-2 Silkworm
HY-2/CSSC-3 Seersucker
HY-4/CSSC-7 Sadsack
YJ-6/CAS-1 Kraken

I am not sure what you are smoking but following is some revelation for you:

"The 2003 Iraq War showed that while the United States has made strides in protecting its forces against ballistic missiles, it has placed far less effort on addressing the threat posed by cruise missiles. While US and Kuwaiti Patriot theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) batteries intercepted and destroyed all nine Iraqi ballistic missiles launched at military targets, they failed to detect or intercept any of the five HY-2/CSSC-3 Seersucker cruise missiles launched against Kuwait. One came close to hitting Camp Commando, the US Marine Corps headquarters in Kuwait, on the first day of the war. Another landed just outside a shopping mall in Kuwait City. The missiles also contributed to fratricide, causing the loss of two coalition aircraft and the death of three crewmembers."

Link: https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/the-cruise-missile-challenge

Lot of information in this link: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Cruise-Missiles.html#mozTocId21144

HY-2/CSSC-3 Seersucker variant is a deadly weapon. It can be utilized against a wide breath of targets, and is equipped with a large warhead. It can produce considerable incendiary effect as well.

Americans are no longer taking any chances; American-exclusive Patriot defense systems have the capability to neutralize cruise missiles since 2007.

Not sure if this capability is exported.

First, Iran took a lesson from US wars in Iraq and prepared itself. Iran knows that it will have to deal with a country with superior firepower.

Second, instead of posting ignorant nonsense--- you better study 2006 war in Lebanon and answer a question: How come that despite full control of the skies and vastly superior firepower, Israeli air force FAILED to destroy Hezbollah's Command and Control/military infrastructure/---FAILED to stop rocket launches from tiny territory of Lebanon even despite full control of the skies? FAILED to defeat Hezbollah.

Hezbollah Rockets were falling on Israel up until the end of 2006 war even despite Hezbollah was on the "receiving end of thousands of precision-guided munitions each day"

Refer to this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pers...-iranian-military.649718/page-5#post-12023577

1. USA is far stronger than Israel actually, in military-related matters as well.

To give you some perspective, famous Iraqi military commander Ra'ad al-Hamdani who is a veteran of Iraqi wars with Israel, Iran and USA, had a much higher view of military might and professionalism of USA based on his experiences; Israel and Iran did not impress him conversely.

2. Israel's chief mistake was to delay its invasion of Lebanon during the course of its war with Hezbollah in 2006 - this delay offered ample time to Hezbollah to entrench itself and strike at Israel. Israeli officials realized this blunder in a post-war report.

Compare that to American Blitzkrieg in Iraq in 2003. US-led forces were on the move since day 1 and reached Baghdad in a span of 21 days. This wasn't due to lack of resistance (thousands of Iraqi troops and militia perished during the course of these 21 days while resisting advances of American troops) but due to American troops having excellent logistics and not giving Iraqi security apparatus much breathing space and time to strategize and resist effectively. American Armor was also capable of taking lot of pounding and continue to punch through. Russian-origin Armor falls short in comparison.

US have also fielded the most extensive and advanced surveillance apparatus in the world, to be in the position to notice and monitor military-related movements of opposing forces in real-time.

This asset: https://www.airforcemag.com/jstars-returns-to-the-middle-east/

- is just a component part of the holistic American surveillance apparatus. There are numerous components including the SBIRS constellation.

Americans are in a much better position to suppress enemy offensive options at present than Israel back in 2006.

And Yemen also has its own ballistic missile: Burkan-1 and Burkan-2

Do you realy believe that third world countries like Yemen and Iraq of 1991 can make its own missiles?

They just take a Scud they bought from abroad--add some light modifications and use them as low accuracy weapons of terror against cities.

Ballistic missiles can be manufactured/assembled from necessary components which can be solicited from "allies."

Yemen acquired ballistic missiles and associated components from USSR, China and Iran.

Iraq acquired ballistic missiles and associated components from USSR, China and North Korea.

Iran acquired ballistic missiles and associated components from USSR, China and North Korea.

LOL. You have no idea of what are you talking about.

Making a 50m CEP missile is of enormous technological challenge....The best and brightest minds of USSR and USA were breaking their heads in trying to solve the problem of low accuracy of ballistic missiles.

It was only after satellite navigation and new generation of complex gyroscopes----- high level of precision of ballistic missiles was achieved in first world countries.

Even Iranian missiles from 2010 had a CEP of 500m and only recently Iran managed to achieve 5m accuracy.

Saddam with his third world technological and industrial base in no way could have achieved a 50m accuracy in 1990s.

Fair enough.

Refer to this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...roy-it-in-2-days.651899/page-10#post-12066558

This is intellectual rape

Correction: intellectual dishonesty.

 

[VEVAK]

Refer back to this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...troy-it-in-2-days.651899/page-6#post-12065030

"Iraqi armed forces were able to subject Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to a total of 88 (ballistic missile) strikes in 1991. Didn't make much difference because coalition forces were on the move throughout and YOU cannot defeat Air Force and Navy with ballistic missiles anyways. These weapons posit a threat to stationary targets." - (1)

Flew over your head? All of it?

Let us concentrate on this part: "These weapons posit a threat to stationary targets."

If you are attacking a military base with ballistic missiles (assuming conventional warheads), it makes sense to subject the military base to a volley of ballistic missiles in order to have a higher chance of scoring meaningful hits. Ballistic missiles are rather notorious for suffering a malfunction and/or veering off-course during the course of respective flight(s) - therefore, a volley will do.

Saudi Dhahran International Airport was housing American military barracks back in 1991. Iraqi armed forces subjected this particular airport to ballistic missile strikes on a frequent basis consequently. Some of the more threatening warheads were intercepted by a Patriot battery stationed near this airport. The one which got through on February 25, struck the American military barracks and inflicted multiple casualties.

"Of two Patriot batteries in range, one was non-operational and other did not detect Scud because of software problem. Warhead hit United States barracks killing 28 and injuring over 100." - FAS.org

If I take your lame argument at face value, Iranian ballistic missiles do not hold much military value either because even a volley of them failed to achieve much in the Iraqi Al-Asad military base. And bear in mind that there wasn't a Patriot battery stationed near this military base to counter incoming ballistic missiles. Your much touted innovations to ballistic missile designs haven't changed much on the ground unfortunately; refer back to (1) above. Now try to connect this dot with (2) below.


Publicly acknowledged range of a weapon is an irrelevant point to make. Do you think that a missile with 80 KM flight range does not kill when scoring a hit?

Iranian moppets have a one-dimensional view of military conflict. You guys tend to imagine that Iran will have all the time in the world to subject American military positions across the Middle East to ballistic missile strikes with impunity while Americans will just sit there and do nothing - World War 1 style. This isn't how a modern military operation is executed, particularly the Offense-Defense doctrine type.

Iraqi armed forces were able to subject American military positions in Kuwait to a total of 23 (TBMs + cruise missiles) during the course of war with NATO in 2003 while under assault from coalition forces from DAY 1, which is an achievement in itself when you come to terms with the bigger picture:

"To try to slow the allied advance toward Baghdad, Iraq has positioned artillery among the pipelines and oil infrastructure of southern Iraq. The artillery has the range to reach the northern tip of Kuwait. Iraq has also placed more representatives from its security services in regular army units to discourage defections and encourage the soldiers to fight.

Despite those steps, American military planners say they are confident that allied forces will win decisively and many expect the conflict to be relatively quick, measured in weeks and days and not in months. American forces are planning to use an enormous quantity of bombs -- 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours alone -- to try to disable Iraq's air defenses and command and control and stun Mr. Hussein's government.

The air defense of Baghdad consists of several Soviet-designed systems: the SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8. Iraq has been trying to upgrade the missiles and radar for those systems and put them in strategic positions.

''They have a great deal of triple A and heavy machine guns,'' said General Leaf, referring to antiaircraft artillery. ''And if you put enough lead in the air somebody is going to get hit if they are at the altitudes that those bullets can reach. That's a robust air defense system.''

The United States has sought to knock out many command posts in the no-flight zones, particularly in the south. But coalition commanders expect Iraq to use observers on the ground who could help mount a defense in the Baghdad area.

''They will generally know there is an attack coming and because they have their defense compressed around Baghdad they will be able to respond and put a lot of missiles and a lot of bullets in the air and that will make Baghdad a very tough problem,'' General Leaf said.

''The volume of it is significant,'' General Leaf said, referring to antiaircraft artillery. '' I think there will be even more in Baghdad and there was a lot in Desert Storm.''

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/...r-defense-is-concentrated-around-baghdad.html

Emphasis mine. What do you think will happen if Iran is subjected to overwhelming firepower on that scale or bigger? When Iranian military positions and bases, Command & Communications (C&C) infrastructure and more, will be under a thorough assault from multiple directions? This is the SCENARIO that I am alluding to in this thread, that in no way or form Iranian armed forces would be able to subject American military positions across the Middle East to hundreds of (ballistic missile) strikes while finding themselves on the receiving end of thousands of precision-guided munitions each day. Iran will loose much of its firepower in a matter of few days as alluded to by me in my posts in this thread as well as the article cited in the first post of this thread. This is assuming a full-scale war between USA and Iran. - (2)

You clowns have no idea. No wonder Iran was fighting a war with Iraq World War I style back in the 1980s. You have NO game due to your one-dimensional perception of warfare.


How about you bother to do some homework instead of spreading disinformation?

Iraq had managed to develop two types of TBMs namely Al-Samoud-II and Al-Fat'h after 1998.

The original Al-Samoud-II TBM was equipped with gyroscopes taken from the guidance system of C601 and C611 cruise missiles. However, Iraq introduced a more advanced derivative of Al-Samoud-II as well which is identified as Ababil-100 in relevant reports.

References:-

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/al_samoud.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Samoud_2

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al-samoud_2.htm

Complete list of Iraqi missile inventory: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html

"In 2000-2001, Iraq began a "re-motor" project to extend the shelf life of its FROG-7 (LUNA) and Ababil-50 battlefield artillery rockets by replacing their aging double-base solid rocket motors with more energetic composite solid-propellant motors. Renamed Al Ra'ad and Al Nida', respectively, these efforts helped advance the composite solid infrastructure in Iraq. It is unclear if these projects were completed by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Composite propellants offered higher energy than double-base propellants, so the re-motor effort renewed the shelf life and improved performance of the rockets." - FAS

However:

"In terms of material procurement, ISG estimated that Iraq's ability to field the Al Fat'h was dependant on its ability to build motors. Although fewer warheads were built (see chart below), this can be explained by the use of inert warheads during many flight tests, thus requiring fewer live warheads for the program. ISG estimated that Iraq had between 50 and 60 Al Fat'h missiles available at the onset of OIF. During the war, Iraq fired between 12 and 16 Al Fat'h missiles. In addition, informal assessments of Al Fat'hs destroyed or damaged during the war vary from four to 13. To date, Coalition forces have collected at least 10 Al Fat'hs. Given the above numbers, the number of Al Fat'h missiles unaccounted for could vary from 0 to 34 (see table below). However, ammunition and weapon systems are being collected and destroyed all over Iraq, and a number of Al Fat'hs have been misidentified as FROG-7 or ASTROS battlefield rockets. A full accounting of Al Fat'h missiles may not be possible."

Link: https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/ababil.htm


See above.

There was an absolute lack of transparency in Iraqi sources for its missile-related experiments back in the days of Saddam Hussein in later years (1998 - 2003) due to the fact that Iraqi missile-related programs were subject to UN inspections [and disarmament initiatives] from time-to-time since 1991. Therefore, Iraq had to resort to clandestine methods to solicit relevant components in order to improve flight range and accuracy of its TBMs over time, and Al-Fat'h program escaped UN disarmament hammer in particular because Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003 anyways. This is why CEP of Iraqi TBM variant (Al-Fat'h) is largely unclear in public records.


See above, Iranian propaganda bot.

Being able to drop missiles on civilian targets holds absolutely no military significance when going up against extra reginal power like the U.S. whos soil you can't reach so they hold no military significance against the U.S. at all and even against regional powers except for it's psychological factor it holds no tactical significance and we Iranians should know Iran & Iraq threw 100's of BM at each other so 88 is really not that big of a number especially from a country who claimed to be producing his own BM's plus the vast majority of the 88 simply fell in the middle of nowhere.

As for your delusions about 50meter CEP you should know that even by 2003 even Iran's most accurate Ballistic Missile only had a CEP of 150 meters at 150km and that's on the Fateh-110 1st gen production that was equipped with control surfaces.... So I can promise you that your speaking of things that you simply don't have the slightest clue of!

FYI according to UN inspectors by 2003 Saddam's entire stock of Ballistic missiles was limited to under a dozen 300km scuds and a bunch of Frog-7 that had CEP's over a few km so NO Saddam DID NOT have any TBM or any BM's capable of achieving 50m cep and clearly his stock was not of that a country capable of producing it's own BM's! And the Iraq war proved that he didn't because between 1992-2002 the U.S. was systematically bombing various parts of Iraq with massive almost yearly bombardments and missile attacks for over a decade and Saddam simply couldn't do a dam thing about it and it wasn't that did didn't want too or that he mistakenly thought that it was a more tactically sound option the sad truth is that without foreign help he simply lacked the weapons needed to respond!

 

[VEVAK]

1/2



You need to revisit your assessment.

.

LOL! 1st off I hope you know that these retarded figures come from ppl who for the past 2 decades haven't been able to even get the number of Iranian Tanks or APC or MLRS or active helo's correctly let alone the number of Iranian Missile stock and they also are the same idiots that for over 3 decades kept predicting that Iranian F-14's are a year or two from being grounded and here we are 3 decades later and are the same morons whos so called expert on Iran's missile by 2010 didn't even know that the Sejil was a 2 stage missile.... So your stats comes from those morons!

So these are the idiots your using as sources

FYI by 2007 Iran's Shahab-3 production had already surpassed 1 per week 52 per year

As for the accuracy of the Fateh class accuracy the Fateh-110B produced between 2004-2008 1st model that was truly mass produced had a CEP of 150m at 150km not 100meter however every version produced post 2008 had CEP's of under ~35meters or less with the accuracy, range & quality improving systematically every 2 years.... As for production, the number of F-110 missiles Iran produced over the past decade is nothing compared to the number Iran produced between 2002-2010