What's new

Will Iran enter to the war against Israel?

Hamas won, Palastina liberated

Iran doesn't have to do anything anymore.
View attachment 1029429


Don't worry my friend, nothing of that sort is going to happen.
Well basically only thing we agree Palestinians “won” and vast majority of “Islamic” government leaders are supporting with “action” agree with what Hamas did or not I don’t call for protecting Hamas I call for protecting innocent people yes it doesn’t matter what your background is I think people on this forum forget that. From the Morocco to Indonesia I think all of the leaders should be ashamed.
 
Last edited:
.
What the hell are you talking about?

If the USAF wanted to map out Iranian coastal defence, they would have sent EW aircraft (Like RC-135, EP-3 or EC-130) because that way you actively trap the Electronic Signal, Radiation or and other parameters instead of depends on Iranian response, not saying the USAF had not done it, but this is NOT the mission of this MQ-1

Knowing the individual defense's location is one thing, knowing the entire chain is another, just because they send up a MQ-1 and waiting on your response does not mean they don't know shit, in fact, they send up 2 F-22 chasing it means they know where the threat come from, or at least this is going to expect contact.
I gave two tries but could not figure out WTF he was talking about. I think this guy is truly shortsighted. I doubt he could think beyond one maybe two moves.

I been to two Red Flags, once with an observer team for the F-111 and once with my own F-16 squadron participated. You can recon and/or you can provoke. You can provoke and observe responses. You can recon, guess responses, provoke, then analyze if your guesses are correct and how proximate. With technologically competent opponents, such as Soviet/Russia and China, best to recon first and provoke later. With less technologically comparable opponents, pretty much the ME entirely, you can provoke first because usually they need eyeballs on target before they can make decisions, further, because many small countries do not always get along with each other, they need to respond ASAP so for US, provoke first and observe works. Sacrificing a UAV is small cost compare to what we always gains in intel, but he is jeering at US for that loss. Weird. :disagree:
 
.
I gave two tries but could not figure out WTF he was talking about. I think this guy is truly shortsighted. I doubt he could think beyond one maybe two moves.

I been to two Red Flags, once with an observer team for the F-111 and once with my own F-16 squadron participated. You can recon and/or you can provoke. You can provoke and observe responses. You can recon, guess responses, provoke, then analyze if your guesses are correct and how proximate. With technologically competent opponents, such as Soviet/Russia and China, best to recon first and provoke later. With less technologically comparable opponents, pretty much the ME entirely, you can provoke first because usually they need eyeballs on target before they can make decisions, further, because many small countries do not always get along with each other, they need to respond ASAP so for US, provoke first and observe works. Sacrificing a UAV is small cost compare to what we always gains in intel, but he is jeering at US for that loss. Weird. :disagree:
Well, I don't believe they did shot that MQ-1 down, so I don't honestly know what he meant by losing the unmanned platform....
 
. . .
He's talking about RQ-4, keep up
It still wouldn't make any sense.

That RQ-4 was shot down, which mean that drone would have been able to transmit whatever or whoever that shot it down, you will literally have to turn on the radar, have it paint the target and then prompt something to shoot it down, again, that's the entire kill chain. The issue here is not whether or not the platform is lost, you can kill a MQ-1 or RQ-4, those are drone, they are expendable and supposed to be used like that, that's why a drone was used instead of a manned platform.

And if a few millions or even hundred million dollars drone can make Iran show their hand and attack it, that's a bargain.
 
.
you can kill a MQ-1 or RQ-4, those are drone, they are expendable and supposed to be used like that, that's why a drone was used instead of a manned platform.
I don't know what you guys are talking about but RQ-4 drone costs $312m (USAF "acquired a fleet of 32 RQ-4As/Bs in four production Blocks at a total cost of approximately $10 billion") so I am not sure it is supposed to be that expendable during peace time
 
.
I don't know what you guys are talking about but RQ-4 drone costs $312m (USAF "acquired a fleet of 32 RQ-4As/Bs in four production Blocks at a total cost of approximately $10 billion") so I am not sure it is supposed to be that expendable during peace time
That's contract cost buddy, you need to look at what that contract is for, it can be with extra ground station or even spare radar, engine etc.

A RQ-4 unit cost is between 131 million (Procurement cost, ie just making the thing, without R&D) to 222 million (Per unit - Entire program) as per GAO office


1700370285529.png


That airframe that was destroyed cost only 120-131 million to make. and Unit Cost will likely lower with more order.
 
Last edited:
.
Iran personally ? no , but the numerous IDF casualties in lebanon border , the massive amount of KIA/WIA US soldiers in Syria and the numerous TBM and Drone Attack by Yemen kept happening day by day , as USA struggled to keep these embarassing defeats from their propaganda media..

Israel cannot make war with anyone because they have nothing and their economy even now dying. the only reason they can pretend to be tough is because US (NATO) do a phull sapport to bolster the dying IDF.

maybe it is time for indian people to RISE UP and send their hindutva 'phull sapport saar' militias into Palestine.. doing surgical strike nonsense
 
.
That's contract cost buddy, you need to look at what that contract is for, it can be with extra ground station or even spare radar, engine etc.

A RQ-4 unit cost is between 131 million (Procurement cost, ie just making the thing, without R&D) to 222 million (Per unit - Entire program) as per GAO office


View attachment 1029688

That airframe that was destroyed cost only 120-131 million to make. and Unit Cost will likely lower with more order.
okay sorry $222 million is expendable, not $300 million, my mistake
 
.
Dude, only it was YOU who make the statement that US cannot intercept anything that does not have a straight pathway. I am not the one that come up with that idea.
And I've proven how the US cannot while you have yet to disprove it.

And in fact, MANY Houthi missile WERE IN FACT INTERCEPTED by the US and Israeli. As in these news suggested
So what?

And those are recorded facts, so no, THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO PROOF THAT US CANNOT INTERCEPT HOUTHI MISSILE because it has an other than straight flight paths.
I didn't make this statement so why do I have to prove it?

You're poor reading skill leads you to this end.
And that's why I am NOT the one that bring up this, YOU DID.

But then you did not know if that is 1 on 1 hit, so how can you comment on one way or otherwise?
I didn't comment on it, but you did. You are the one who commented on it: bringing up efficiency, using a hypothetical 20:1 scenario. Moot point.

Dude, seriously?

You really do think if Houthi go around and attacking anyone, not just Saudi ship, the world is NOT going to response?? And you think the world will turn on Saudi when everyone's ship is attack??

Dude, you are delusional to the max......
You can think whatever you like - at the end of the day, it is just conjecture devoid of reality, like the rest of your arguments here. Conjecture vs reality. You bank on conjecture. If this, if that, if this, if that, will happen, would have, etc.

Maybe you need to go back and see what Saudi had, if you think 150,000 soldier and 100 warplane is Saudi Full force, you either cannot count or just outright stupid.
Saudi Land forces are 75,000.
Total force is 250,000, out of which 41,000 is navy and 25,000 is air force.

They sent their entire land army to Yemen and even more.

If you think KSA will abandons all of its positions including the dangerous Iraq and Jordan borders, all its positions around the Persian Gulf to counter Iran, all of its oil terminals and shipping lanes, and go 100% full force into Yemen, then I am sorry to say mate but you are dumb af.

Nothing to cede as there are no argument in it

Again, you were not talking about being trackable, you are talking about flightpath, RCS and flightpath are two different concept.
Exactly. RCS and flightpath are two difference concepts which allows US ADS to shoot down maneuverable aircraft but not maneuverable missiles.
Remember: you are the one to bring up maneuverable aircraft.

Sure what?


Both of which just show an attack happens. It show nothing,
Are you drunk or retarded? Lol. Do you even read what you write?

Shows an attack.
Show nothing.

These are contradictory statements.
Which one is it?

Again, if they can't be shot down like you said because it was not in a direct flight path, please explain this
Straight line trajectory.

Dude, did you even know what is "Parabola" it mean a curved flight path, the image show multiple stage of Parabola flight path, which is what you need to ground hugging navigation, it WILL NEVER BE a Straight flightpath becasue you have obstable both natural and man made, on earth.
A parabola rises/depresses once and then it's vector continues to infinity in the opposite direction. This is basic mathematics. What you're looking at in the image is a variation of a sine wave, not a parabola. You will learn this when you reach highschool.

Obviously it hasn't entered your brain yet the idea that a missile can also move left/right instead of just up/down. Your mind is stuck in 2-D.

Again, what's RCS has to do with it? You aren't talking about missile cannot be shoot down because it has low RCS, you were talking about missile cannot be shot down because it does not have a forward and straight flight paths.
I was talking about missiles until you brought up the question of how to shoot maneuverable aircraft. That's what RCS is for.

Yes, I can learn how INSANE you are

@gambit, I don't think I ever say this, but I found someone who are more delusional than Chinese Physics........Come and look at this.
Your train of logic derailed long time ago.

Better call for moral support.

Please do not ever quote me again, I don't talk to crazy people.
hahah. I'm right, you're wrong, don't quote me again.
 
.
okay sorry $222 million is expendable, not $300 million, my mistake
Unit price is 222mil. You don't destroy the ground station, R&D funding and spare parts that comes with the total price while you destorying that airframe.

You only destroy the airframe, which mean you only need to pay the procurement price, which is somewhere over 130 million to replace it, you don't spend on Project cost, R&D again......

And I've proven how the US cannot while you have yet to disprove it.


So what?


I didn't make this statement so why do I have to prove it?

You're poor reading skill leads you to this end.

I didn't comment on it, but you did. You are the one who commented on it: bringing up efficiency, using a hypothetical 20:1 scenario. Moot point.


You can think whatever you like - at the end of the day, it is just conjecture devoid of reality, like the rest of your arguments here. Conjecture vs reality. You bank on conjecture. If this, if that, if this, if that, will happen, would have, etc.


Saudi Land forces are 75,000.
Total force is 250,000, out of which 41,000 is navy and 25,000 is air force.

They sent their entire land army to Yemen and even more.

If you think KSA will abandons all of its positions including the dangerous Iraq and Jordan borders, all its positions around the Persian Gulf to counter Iran, all of its oil terminals and shipping lanes, and go 100% full force into Yemen, then I am sorry to say mate but you are dumb af.


Exactly. RCS and flightpath are two difference concepts which allows US ADS to shoot down maneuverable aircraft but not maneuverable missiles.
Remember: you are the one to bring up maneuverable aircraft.


Are you drunk or retarded? Lol. Do you even read what you write?

Shows an attack.
Show nothing.

These are contradictory statements.
Which one is it?


Straight line trajectory.


A parabola rises/depresses once and then it's vector continues to infinity in the opposite direction. This is basic mathematics. What you're looking at in the image is a variation of a sine wave, not a parabola. You will learn this when you reach highschool.

Obviously it hasn't entered your brain yet the idea that a missile can also move left/right instead of just up/down. Your mind is stuck in 2-D.


I was talking about missiles until you brought up the question of how to shoot maneuverable aircraft. That's what RCS is for.


Your train of logic derailed long time ago.

Better call for moral support.


hahah. I'm right, you're wrong, don't quote me again.
dude, you have zero understanding on physics.

EVERYTHING that launch in medium, in this case, AIR, will not have a straight trajectory, WILL have a parabolic flight paths, because that's what the GRAVITY in this world will drag that item down, it may not be a perfect parabola (as in a perfect U) but it would have been curve on both end, that's just how this world goes. EVERYTHING in this world within the atmosphere would have suffer from the same thing, it's called Drag Coefficient. That's why NO TRAJECTORY on this world are "Straight" if you shoot it between 0 to 89.9999' . You cannot constantly counter the gravity that's why when you shoot something up, it WILL come down once it reaches the critical ceiling.

a missile can also move left/right instead of just up/down

On the other hand, if a missile can move "LEFT or RIGHT" that mean the flightpath is NOT Straight, because straight by definition is not deviated, and going left or right is deviation of your original flight path........and if you deviate from an original flight path, then you can draw a triangle in that flightpath, that's a parabola......

1700403313062.png


This represent a subject turned right at the end of Red Stage.........This is an imperfect curve.......

Gosh, you are really dumb.
 
Last edited:
.
okay sorry $222 million is expendable, not $300 million, my mistake
Problem here’s the equation iran shot down a drone yes expendable ie America can build a more advanced version later on but resulting action cause Iranians to lose a leader that could control many forces in different countries because he was charismatic, it seems now you just have a lot of boasting for actions they have no part in. You get one of those leaders every generation or so that people will die for unquestionably.
 
.
For starter, YOU know nothing. To me, you sound like a teenager who is smart enough to use sophisticated sounding words, but not understanding the concepts within.
You know nothing. You sound like a child using sophisticated words not knowing their meaning.

A missile that maneuvers WHILE traveling from point A to B does so under programmed instructions. Then on the final moments of flight, the missile must have a straight line flight to orient itself to its target. The shorter this path, the more difficult for the defender to calculate a collision (intercept) point. But essentially, all missiles have the same behaviors. So what you said is basically wrong in concept. We are working on interceptors that WILL hit a maneuvering attacker during that stage of flight from point A to B. So you are wrong -- again.
"We are working on.." = "we don't currently have it".

Just like your idiot boyfriend, you are banking on a nonexistent conjecture to prove an existent reality. You just proved to us with this little statement "we are working [on it]" that you don't actually possess it at the moment, proving my argument right.

We all know you are just here to give moral support to your boyfriend.

So finally, you are wrong overall. I will address your other wrong points later. :enjoy:
None of what you wrote negates any of my contentions.
 
.
Wrong. :rofl:

If I am the target and a missile is coming to me, the missile's flight path is definitely predictable -- TOWARDS ME. Even if the missile maneuvers during flight, we know its final destination -- me.
You don't know it's final destination.
You assume to know. If it's preprogrammed, it is impossible for you to know.

But at one point, the missile has to enter the 'terminal' phase which is a portion of flight that the missile MUSThave zero error signal.
Wrong. :woot::woot:
Terminal just means the last several seconds of it's flight; it's not a definition of a change in it's behavior. A maneuverable missile can maneuver at any phase of it's flight.

You're wrong on all accounts.

dude, you have zero understanding on physics.
Dood, you have zero understanding of physics.

EVERYTHING that launch in medium, in this case, AIR, will not have a straight trajectory, WILL have a parabolic flight paths, because that's what the GRAVITY in this world will drag that item down, it may not be a perfect parabola (as in a perfect U) but it would have been curve on both end, that's just how this world goes. EVERYTHING in this world within the atmosphere would have suffer from the same thing, it's called Drag Coefficient. That's why NO TRAJECTORY on this world are "Straight" if you shoot it between 0 to 89.9999' . You cannot constantly counter the gravity that's why when you shoot something up, it WILL come down once it reaches the critical ceiling.
So what? Learn the difference between sine and parabola.
On the other hand, if a missile can move "LEFT or RIGHT" that mean the flightpath is NOT Straight, because straight by definition is not deviated, and going left or right is deviation of your original flight path........and if you deviate from an original flight path, then you can draw a triangle in that flightpath, that's a parabola......
Sine wave. Not parabola.

Gosh, you are really dumb.
All this rambling and you still could not produce even an iota of reasoning on how to intercept a maneuverable missile.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom