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

[GWXP]

1/2


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.


You need to revisit your assessment.

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

It seems like it is impossbile to convince you and you continue to post nonsense, probably because "You do not understand much about of warfare even in theory" (how you wrote in one of your posts...).

I will make some replies anyway:

1) You post sources claiming Patriot successfully intercepted Saddams Scud in 1991----while it is well known that US initially claimed it intercepted 46 out of 47 Scuds for propaganda purposes--and a decade later they acknowledged that real effectiveness of Patriot was 10%---some claim even lower----make your own research....

2) You claim that volley of ballistic missiles is required to hit a single target----this is true for old missiles with their poor accuracy---but not true for super-high precision missiles with 5m CEP that Iran demonstrated in Ain-Al Assad----"this should be clear to anybody with a functioning brain by now"

3) Saddam attacked not only Israel "to drag in into the war", but also Riyadh---why?---isn't it better to use those missiles to attack military bases?----but he couldn't do it effectively due to poor accuracy of his missiles-----

4) You post a source with assessment from 2010 (a decade ago) and claim that I have to reasses my estimate when it is actually a recent fresh estimate by the Pentagon.

Your source claims Iranian missiles have a CEP of 100-2000m....But even a retard will know that after Ain-Al Assad it is clear that actual CEP of Iranian missiles is 5-10m.

Even older missiles like Shahad-3 from early 2000s were modernized by adding a new highly accurate manuevering warhead and called "Emad"

And this is a demonstrated accuracy of Khorramshahr 2000km range missile

5) What Iran achieved in Ain-Al Assad? Iran demonstrated to all retarded "experts" who claim 500m CEP for Iranian missiles and to US that it has highly accurate missiles that can destroy high value targets in all US bases in the Middle East with high precision, from 500-1000 km aways, and within 3-4 minutes.

6) Regarding "Trump allowed"----if a president of a great nation allows a slap in the face, then what kind of a great nation is this?---Trump simply didn't have the balls to fight back and 64 soldiers of the Great USA suffered brain injuries even despite Iran didn't have intensions to hurt anyone in this demonstration of power.

7) Regarding "taking a chance against Prince Sultan air base"-----Iran has already taken a chance against Patriot protected Abqaiq and Khurais oil refineries----- and if Saudis make a mistake, Iran can easily take on Prince Sultan air base as well----this base has a better protection, but I have already posted a source describing poor performance of US ABM defenses even against primitive missiles that don't have countermeasures or decoys

8) You post a source with propaganda claims of Ratheon and Saudi government of how well Saudi Patriots performed against primitive missiles.

You better read independent sources:

Quote:
Laura Grego, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed alarm that Saudi defense batteries had fired five times at the incoming missile.

"You shoot five times at this missile and they all miss? That's shocking,” she said. “That's shocking because this system is supposed to work.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-defense.html

9) If Israel which has one of the most powerful militaries in the world failed to neutralize non state actor like Hezbollah

US air power will fail against Iran because Iran prepared itself for this kind of war even better than Hezbollah

 

[That Guy]

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

Sure, but I would still like to know where you think I lied.

That's an accusation I take very seriously, especially since I'm a TTA.

 

[gambit]

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.

For starter, jets are not hangared. They are parked on the ramp.

I will not waste my time with the rest of your post since from the first comment, you clearly have no idea of how an airbase operate, which indicate you have no experience at all.

 

[Ich]

Sure, but I would still like to know where you think I lied.

That's an accusation I take very seriously, especially since I'm a TTA.

I already showed you. You said that there were less US troops with Trump, and i showed you that there were more US troops with Trump, and then still you said there were less US troops. And per definition your last one is then a lie.

Edit:

I also prove your statement "Trump is no warmonger" as false. But you still insist on that. And that where Trump just kill Soleimani by drone. What is more warmongering than that? So you multiple stated wrong things altough you were showed the opposite.

Maybe in your world youre false statements are normal, but in my world this is called spreading lies.

 

[gambit]

did Iran Goal was runway denial ?

If not, then it was a severe tactical mistake.

the photo show precision of the strike if we wanted runway denial those missiles could damage far more than your GBU-31, well your option was cheaper but ours is more devastating

Wrong. Clearly, a tactician -- you are not.

An airbase is a DYNAMIC weapon platform, meaning you have to either utterly destroy it or render it completely inoperational within a time window to accommodate other operations. Runway denial is the latter. So what other operations did Iran had in mind for either option?

If you chose to destroy the airbase utterly, but then you stop the war or that its destruction was not a component of a larger plan, then you just wasted your resources.

If you render the airbase inoperative via runway denial, then it begs the issue that you want the airbase to be ineffective for a larger plan that is going to happen within a few minutes.

But in this case, Iran did NOTHING after the missile attack.

The US killed Qasem Soleimani, which was not a tactical (short term) but a strategic (long term) event, which mean we do not have to immediately follow up, or we can follow up in weeks or even months later. But for a tactical target, a follow up should be within hours or days -- at longest. An airbase is a tactical target. Hangars can be rebuilt. Lost aircrafts can be replaced and same for personnel. Runways can be repaired. If you do not follow up, you just wasted your time and resources. For nothing.

And was Saddam ever able to drop a bomb or a missile on a single American aircraft shelter or bunker let alone do so with purely domestically produced weapons?
I think NOT!

And that was the point.

Look at it from a boxing perspective, particularly from Mike Tyson's. You think he punch with less than %100? Even a jab is intended to create internal disorientation.

We hit hard enough so that our opponent cannot respond effectively. That have been the lesson since the beginning of warfare. Even Iran's military academy teaches that, am sure.

 

[Sineva]

For starter, jets are not hangared. They are parked on the ramp.

I will not waste my time with the rest of your post since from the first comment, you clearly have no idea of how an airbase operate, which indicate you have no experience at all.

Wow!
Nice rebuttal buddy,you sure destroyed all of my points[NOT]
Seriously tho,I have to say that reading your above post almost left me literally speechless as effectively you`re claiming that the aircraft at us bases will be parked out in the open where they would be vulnerable even to small ucav launched glide bombs,never mind the utterly catastrophic effects that a large missile cluster munition or blast warhead would do to any aircraft parked out in the open,indeed one doesnt have to look any further than the pictures of the damage to some of the targets at al-assad to get a very good idea of what would happen.

For instance we can clearly see here the damage done by a single high explosive warhead,nearby we can see rotorcraft parked out on the ramps.It takes little effort to imagine the results of that blast warhead detonating in the middle of the five rotorcraft at the right of the picture,now its possible that the two on the left may have escaped total destruction but its very likely that they would sustain considerable damage from shrapnel and debris.The picture gets even more unpleasant if one contemplates the effects of blast fragmentation and submunition warheads.I guess there was a very good reason why the us airforce built all of those hardened aircraft shelters in its foreign airbases after all.
Just out of curiosity your name wouldnt be Mitty,first name Walter,by any chance would it?

 

[Mithridates]

For starter, jets are not hangared. They are parked on the ramp.

air burst warhead, scatters shrapnel up to 350 meters in radius.

 

[mangekyo]

3m cep? That is impossible

 

[VEVAK]

And that was the point.

Look at it from a boxing perspective, particularly from Mike Tyson's. You think he punch with less than %100? Even a jab is intended to create internal disorientation.

We hit hard enough so that our opponent cannot respond effectively. That have been the lesson since the beginning of warfare. Even Iran's military academy teaches that, am sure.

The main point is that the U.S. like always picked an enemy that had no real indigenous capability that could be used to launch attacks that could potentially pose a credible threat to U.S. assets located at U.S. bases that were used to launch attacks from and so when U.S. sanctioned and blockaded Iraq they where practically defenseless in terms of tactical retaliatory capabilities and what they were left with was a bunch of SAM that the U.S. took it's time taking out over a span of a decade between 1991-2002 and then a bunch of tanks with no Air or SAM coverage and add to that the lack of retaliatory capabilities and they were easy pickings.
And that's why since WW2 the U.S. has not gone to war against any country with a credible domestic defense industry! Hell, the U.S. hasn't even gone to war against a country capable of producing it's own ATGM's let alone against a country like Iran that's capable of producing it's own Precision Guided Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles, Armed jet powered UCAV's.....

And I'm not saying the U.S. is a weak country simply that since WW2 the U.S. has been very carful in picking what countries to attack and invade and when it comes to Iran there isn't a single true American defense expert that even ponders about invading Iran and with good reason and without a full invasion and due to Iran's domestic retaliatory capabilities the U.S. will have no control over how a war would play out and how or even when it would end which to a smaller extent also happens to be the same lesson the Saudi's are now learning in Yemen.

And so Iran's missile attacks against Ain al Assad should be a stern warning to the fools in this U.S. administration as to what could happen if this idiot President of yours makes the foolish mistake of breaking that pattern and starts a conflict with a country fully capable of responding!

Wow!
Nice rebuttal buddy,you sure destroyed all of my points[NOT]
Seriously tho,I have to say that reading your above post almost left me literally speechless as effectively you`re claiming that the aircraft at us bases will be parked out in the open where they would be vulnerable even to small ucav launched glide bombs,never mind the utterly catastrophic effects that a large missile cluster munition or blast warhead would do to any aircraft parked out in the open,indeed one doesnt have to look any further than the pictures of the damage to some of the targets at al-assad to get a very good idea of what would happen.

For instance we can clearly see here the damage done by a single high explosive warhead,nearby we can see rotorcraft parked out on the ramps.It takes little effort to imagine the results of that blast warhead detonating in the middle of the five rotorcraft at the right of the picture,now its possible that the two on the left may have escaped total destruction but its very likely that they would sustain considerable damage from shrapnel and debris.The picture gets even more unpleasant if one contemplates the effects of blast fragmentation and submunition warheads.I guess there was a very good reason why the us airforce built all of those hardened aircraft shelters in its foreign airbases after all.
Just out of curiosity your name wouldnt be Mitty,first name Walter,by any chance would it?

The Americans have gotten so used to picking such weaker enemies that they have also gotten used to parking their aircrafts outside or in soft shelters.... So it's really not that big of a surprise!

 

[Mithridates]

3m cep? That is impossible

it's short range, so i assume it's true. army's similar labaik-1 missile has around 1 meter CEP.
but the point is it's unique method of exploding. 14k shrapnel traveling +2 mach can certainly damage and inactivate/destroy any vehicle in a vast area.

 

[mangekyo]

it's short range, so i assume it's true. army's similar labaik-1 missile has around 1 meter CEP.
but the point is it's unique method of exploding. 14k shrapnel traveling +2 mach can certainly damage and inactivate/destroy any vehicle in a vast area.

Early versions of scud had CEP in the km range, Scud C if I am not wrong has >50m CEP. If Yemens missiles are variations of Scud missiles, I don't think they are anything near 3m CEP unless Iran has shared missile tech with them.

 

[Ich]

No, ballistic missiles cannot hit 'moving' ships.

Even arty shells can hit moving targets. Today it is past year 2000.

 

[That Guy]

I already showed you. You said that there were less US troops with Trump, and i showed you that there were more US troops with Trump, and then still you said there were less US troops. And per definition your last one is then a lie.

Point out where I said that. Once again, I take such accusations seriously.

I remember saying that trump only sent a few thousand troop, and that he wants to reduce numbers.

I NEVER SAID THERE WERE LESS TROOPS UNDER TRUMP.

Edit:

I also prove your statement "Trump is no warmonger" as false. But you still insist on that. And that where Trump just kill Soleimani by drone. What is more warmongering than that? So you multiple stated wrong things altough you were showed the opposite.

That's not warmongering. Warmongers declare war. Trump has not declared war. A few strikes here and there is not declaring war

So no, you did no such thing.

Maybe in your world youre false statements are normal, but in my world this is called spreading lies.

In your world, sniffing petrol is healthy, and the moon is made of cheese.

Forgive me if I don't take your comment seriously, considering you seem to have a problem with reading and understanding what you read.

 

[Ich]

Point out where I said that. Once again, I take such accusations seriously.

I remember saying that trump only sent a few thousand troop, and that he wants to reduce numbers.



That's not warmongering. Warmongers declare war. Trump has not declared war. A few strikes here and there is not declaring war

So no, you did no such thing.


In your world, sniffing petrol is healthy, and the moon is made of cheese.

Forgive me if I don't take your comment seriously, considering you seem to have a problem with reading and understanding what you read.

Well, he "sent a few thousand troop", but "wants to reduce numbers". So in the end he sent more troops. All over the world.

Also warmonger:

"Trump killed Iran's top general, do you really think he wouldnt do so again?"

Well, killing high ranking millitary or government persons of an other country is per se the definition of a warmonger. But you said

"Trump has a lot flaws....but being a warmonger is not one of them.

And now YOU listen:

I do not want to talk with you any more. Your ill world is not my world.

 

[Sina-1]

Well, he "sent a few thousand troop", but "wants to reduce numbers". So in the end he sent more troops. All over the world.

Also warmonger:

View attachment 603746

"Trump killed Iran's top general, do you really think he wouldnt do so again?"

Well, killing high ranking millitary or government persons of an other country is per se the definition of a warmonger. But you said

View attachment 603746 View attachment 603747

"Trump has a lot flaws....but being a warmonger is not one of them.

And now YOU listen:

I do not want to talk with you any more. Your ill world is not my world.

Bekhialesh dadash. Looser hastesh!