Iran's ballistic missile systems were equipped with versatile camouflage

[najaf47]

hoo69

Iran's ballistic missile system to counter multi-purpose camouflage tricks of the enemy, were equipped.

East News Agency, East News analysis: Iran's ballistic missile systems were equipped with multi-purpose camouflage

The Department of Defense and Security Orient News, according to the enemies of Iran advances in electronic warfare systems such as being given electro-magnetic bombs, Iranian experts managed to design and build systems to deal with this action and features were the enemy.
Considering the missile can be preserved in different conditions and provide the possibility of multiple and diverse crowd, despite doing a variety of tactics by the enemy threat conditions, one of the most important strategies is the Iranian armed forces.
Therefore and to counter enemy actions in this field Jngal, Iranian defense experts, a camouflage net with a few important features were produced. The camouflage net in addition to missiles, launchers and other belongings of missile systems from the risk of being seen by enemy aircraft, satellites and reserves, the ability to deal with acts of war the enemy has the electronics.
Iranian missile systems equipped with the innovative camouflage net, can respond to any threat at any moment and in all conditions will exist.


mashreghnews.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=13908

 

[godbody]

I like to know how will this help Iranian to conceal it missiles? I remember during Desert Storm when I was with the 101st Airborne the problem with hunting scud missiles are you have dunnie missiles out there and mobile missile that are on the go.

 

[My2Cents]

Iranian camoflage is so effective that it is impossible to locate and identify any of their new equipment.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Iranian camoflage is so effective that it is impossible to locate and identify any of their new equipment.

Wow, dude I wouldn't go that far. The questions is how high-tech is this camouflage? Which countries can and cant detect their missile systems.

 

[Todjaeger]

Wow, dude I wouldn't go that far. The questions is how high-tech is this camouflage? Which countries can and cant detect their missile systems.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the poster was using something known as sarcasm.

-Cheers

 

[EXSSBN2005]

Yep invisiable to everything incl the naked eyes, you need your Jngal approved special safey glasses that are bio encoded so you cant even let someone else use them to see it, kind of like North Koreas special invisiable cell phone that Kim was using to order / talk directly to his soccer coach in the last world cup that Kim designed himself but that the coach wasnt paying close enough attention when they lost their match.

Funny what people will believe when their Gov't controls everything they read and or see. (I typed out a long rant but then after thinking about it a bit I'm not going to post it as it does nothing to add to the thread.)

We designed this to be invisiable to all current and future forms of detection that could possiably be used against us. Hmm interesting idea but since I dont have those glasses I can't even say we will see since your blocking all the future stuff also.

 

[My2Cents]

Funny what people will believe when their Gov't controls everything they read and or see. (I typed out a long rant but then after thinking about it a bit I'm not going to post it as it does nothing to add to the thread.)

Actually it is unlikely that many of the Iranian people believe any of these pronouncements. They after all, have more experience with their government than we do. No the real target is the Main Stream Media [MSM], who understand very little about anything and nothing about military matters, but are experts on anything everything, especially military matters and technology.

The MSM laps it up and trumpets how any actions taken against Iran (or Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.) will inevitably end in a disastrous defeat for the attackers.:hul

 

[Bastian]

Actually it is unlikely that many of the Iranian people believe any of these pronouncements. They after all, have more experience with their government than we do. No the real target is the Main Stream Media [MSM], who understand very little about anything and nothing about military matters, but are experts on anything everything, especially military matters and technology.

The MSM laps it up and trumpets how any actions taken against Iran (or Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.) will inevitably end in a disastrous defeat for the attackers.:hul

I concur the americans suffered major defeat in iraq and afganistan along with some other countries and to what end? Iran is more powerful and well equiped compared to these 2 countries, not to mention their capability of producing advanced weapon by their own (although its been reverse enginereed from others) iran may develop their own wmd if they were threthned.

 

[justone]

I concur the americans suffered major defeat in iraq and afganistan along with some other countries and to what end? Iran is more powerful and well equiped compared to these 2 countries, not to mention their capability of producing advanced weapon by their own (although its been reverse enginereed from others) iran may develop their own wmd if they were threthned.

The U.S. did not suffer defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not that powerful it has weapons from two decades ago. I will agreed with on the WMD thing. If the fight going be on the ground in Iran that a different story.

 

[Bastian]

The U.S. did not suffer defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not that powerful it has weapons from two decades ago. I will agreed with on the WMD thing. If the fight going be on the ground in Iran that a different story.

Remember, the key of the quick and decisive victory by the us over iraq and afganistan is mostly because of these 2 countries are in bad shape. Afgan were fighting the soviets and at the end of it they were pretty messed up, iraq suffered great losses after the iran iraq war (the whirlwind war or so saddam call it) although they still have many troops with them and military equipment they suffered huge debt to many countries in the iran iraq war which mean their ability to import advanced weaponfrom another country was difficult. And not to mention the iraqis were poorly trained and many of them were conscript who doesn't even got what it takes to fight. Iran now suffer from the us sanction on them, i agree about some (not most) of their military equipment were over 2 decades old but they have create an alternative for their needs by creating their own or upgraiding their military equipment.

 

[My2Cents]

I concur the americans suffered major defeat in iraq and afganistan along with some other countries and to what end? Iran is more powerful and well equiped compared to these 2 countries, not to mention their capability of producing advanced weapon by their own (although its been reverse enginereed from others) iran may develop their own wmd if they were threthned.

I guess defeat depends on your definition of victory. The USA does not want colonies, they are not worth the effort, and can be hard to get rid of (i.e. Puerto Rico). Plans for leaving existed for both before the 1st boot hit the ground. Unfortunately the locals have more guts than brains. If they had been smart they would have waited a year for the USA to leave, then gone back to their games, instead they forced the USA to get involved.

In Iraq there was at least a partially functional nation-state to work start from, so the USA has succeeded enough to finish turning over to them next year. The Saddam/Sunni/al-Qaeda group exists mostly in the press. The Shia fundamentalists, centered around Muqtada al-Sadr is no longer capable of physically overthrowing the government. The biggest threats to Iraqi central government are themselves, as the public appears to becoming disgusted with factional politics, and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north who, with a functional government and far less violence have a growing economy, are making them look even worse by comparison.

Afghanistan is completely different. The only time they ever had something approaching a national government was the Taliban, and their policies (revenge killings and genocide are so tempting) are not acceptable. Then there is the problem of the perfidy of America’s so-called ally Pakistan. This one is hard to call, and depends on factors like how long it takes things to come to a head in Pakistan, the corruption of the Karzai government, and the developing and maintaining supply lines through the former Russian states. Obama’s promise to pull the troops out by some artificial deadline are on par with his promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- it may play well to a portion of his political base, but would doom his administration and party if he actually went through with it. Only if the Taliban (and the ISI) drops its refusal to negotiatons (all past negotiating parties have turned out to be with former members under sentence of death or con men) does an American withdrawal appear politically feasible. However, the trends definitely are against the Taliban, even if it takes another decade to finish.

The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.

 

[Bastian]

I guess defeat depends on your definition of victory. The USA does not want colonies, they are not worth the effort, and can be hard to get rid of (i.e. Puerto Rico). Plans for leaving existed for both before the 1st boot hit the ground. Unfortunately the locals have more guts than brains. If they had been smart they would have waited a year for the USA to leave, then gone back to their games, instead they forced the USA to get involved.

In Iraq there was at least a partially functional nation-state to work start from, so the USA has succeeded enough to finish turning over to them next year. The Saddam/Sunni/al-Qaeda group exists mostly in the press. The Shia fundamentalists, centered around Muqtada al-Sadr is no longer capable of physically overthrowing the government. The biggest threats to Iraqi central government are themselves, as the public appears to becoming disgusted with factional politics, and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north who, with a functional government and far less violence have a growing economy, are making them look even worse by comparison.

Afghanistan is completely different. The only time they ever had something approaching a national government was the Taliban, and their policies (revenge killings and genocide are so tempting) are not acceptable. Then there is the problem of the perfidy of America’s so-called ally Pakistan. This one is hard to call, and depends on factors like how long it takes things to come to a head in Pakistan, the corruption of the Karzai government, and the developing and maintaining supply lines through the former Russian states. Obama’s promise to pull the troops out by some artificial deadline are on par with his promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- it may play well to a portion of his political base, but would doom his administration and party if he actually went through with it. Only if the Taliban (and the ISI) drops its refusal to negotiatons (all past negotiating parties have turned out to be with former members under sentence of death or con men) does an American withdrawal appear politically feasible. However, the trends definitely are against the Taliban, even if it takes another decade to finish.

The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.

You know' it's ironic how both iraq and afganistan end up like this. Iraq, because of their dictator saddam hussein decided to invade iran end up with nothing except losses and huge international debt that will lead iraq to the invasion of kuwait and destroy their country. What's more ironic is afganistan, after being invaded by soviets whom they were fighting now have to do the same to their former allies the us. Sad.

 

[chrisdef]

The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.

The US did lose in vietnam, killing more people doesnt equal a win. Completing there objectives does and they failed majorly.
And 2 years later? The NVA where attacking as the US where evacuating.

 

[My2Cents]

The US did lose in vietnam, killing more people doesnt equal a win. Completing there objectives does and they failed majorly.
And 2 years later? The NVA where attacking as the US where evacuating.

Militarily the US had made South Vietnam strong enough to fight the guerilla war on their own. It was frustration from this that lead to North Vietnam mounting an actual cross-border invasion with regular forces 2 years later.

The evacuation 2 years later was of State Department personnel and their Marine guards from the US Embassy. No US combat units were involved in the fighting or evacuated. The State Department was defeated, not the military. It was still a defeat for the US, but it was not a military defeat.

If the Taliban hopes to achieve something similar to Vietnam they need to negotiate, that will allow the State Department to generate a treaty to supply the political cover so that the politicians can pull the troops out. Then wait a couple of years and take over.

Thinking further on this, Mullah Omar may not feel that, given the nature of the Taliban as a collection of tribal war bands, he can hold it together for a year or more without the promise of money and looting. This may explain why he refuses to negotiate.

 

[surpreme]

Militarily the US had made South Vietnam strong enough to fight the guerilla war on their own. It was frustration from this that lead to North Vietnam mounting an actual cross-border invasion with regular forces 2 years later.

The evacuation 2 years later was of State Department personnel and their Marine guards from the US Embassy. No US combat units were involved in the fighting or evacuated. The State Department was defeated, not the military. It was still a defeat for the US, but it was not a military defeat.

If the Taliban hopes to achieve something similar to Vietnam they need to negotiate, that will allow the State Department to generate a treaty to supply the political cover so that the politicians can pull the troops out. Then wait a couple of years and take over.

Thinking further on this, Mullah Omar may not feel that, given the nature of the Taliban as a collection of tribal war bands, he can hold it together for a year or more without the promise of money and looting. This may explain why he refuses to negotiate.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam but what you said about a political cover I agree with you. The Taliban is getting destroyed by SF/CIA operative. One thing the US did correct was to go into Afghanistan with SF and that was the difference in this war. But the part of them taking over when the US leave is not going to happen lost to many fighters. But a civil war could happen.

 

[Beatmaster]

I guess defeat depends on your definition of victory. The USA does not want colonies, they are not worth the effort, and can be hard to get rid of (i.e. Puerto Rico). Plans for leaving existed for both before the 1st boot hit the ground. Unfortunately the locals have more guts than brains. If they had been smart they would have waited a year for the USA to leave, then gone back to their games, instead they forced the USA to get involved.

In Iraq there was at least a partially functional nation-state to work start from, so the USA has succeeded enough to finish turning over to them next year. The Saddam/Sunni/al-Qaeda group exists mostly in the press. The Shia fundamentalists, centered around Muqtada al-Sadr is no longer capable of physically overthrowing the government. The biggest threats to Iraqi central government are themselves, as the public appears to becoming disgusted with factional politics, and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north who, with a functional government and far less violence have a growing economy, are making them look even worse by comparison.

Afghanistan is completely different. The only time they ever had something approaching a national government was the Taliban, and their policies (revenge killings and genocide are so tempting) are not acceptable. Then there is the problem of the perfidy of America’s so-called ally Pakistan. This one is hard to call, and depends on factors like how long it takes things to come to a head in Pakistan, the corruption of the Karzai government, and the developing and maintaining supply lines through the former Russian states. Obama’s promise to pull the troops out by some artificial deadline are on par with his promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- it may play well to a portion of his political base, but would doom his administration and party if he actually went through with it. Only if the Taliban (and the ISI) drops its refusal to negotiatons (all past negotiating parties have turned out to be with former members under sentence of death or con men) does an American withdrawal appear politically feasible. However, the trends definitely are against the Taliban, even if it takes another decade to finish.

The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.

Just a matter of fact you are wrong about Afganistan, Iraq and Vietam

Iraq
Did the US (And allies) obtain a military victory?
Yes and No Saddam and his troops have been defeated but even today still militant groups are operational and killing US and NATO soldiers.
So will the US ever have a complete victory? NO
What happens if the US redraws it troops?
Simple the local warlord and tribe chiefs will have a battle of their own to gain political and military control.
Can the US leave knowing that the military victory and efforts will last? NO the moment they leave Iraq will face serious problems that might even spark a new war possible a civil war between locals.

Afganistan
Afganistan has never been conquered it never surrendered and it never got beaten by a enemy.
Yes terrorist cells have been desimated but they are still active and just a matter of fact they are starting to regroup and as has been proven both by media and returning (And still serving troops) is that the taliban (Or fractions of it) are getting better trained, more sophisticated and way more bolder and equipped then before.
The moment the US and its allies leave afganistan will be back in taliban hands (Or a similair group / faction)
Did the US and its allies obtain a military victory yes did they defeat the enemy and the will to make war? NO
Have the key tasks and goals besides arresting bin laden been met? NO not by a long shot according to goverment officals.
So if the US leaves will this war be labeled a a failed one or a draw yes.

Vietnam
The US did win a partial victory.
Simple fact as every history book states the US was military superiour but the cost of the war was to grave to bare and thus they pulled out as the general popluation rejected the war after several years.
So the US lost the support for the war and was forced to leave and thus only gain a partial victory while the vietnamese army was still operating and capable of waging war.

Moral?
In all 3 cases the US started a job which they cannot finish due the amount of cash, lives and time involved not to mention public opinions and diplomatic agreements.
And to make matters worse the economic crisis and new future dangers force the US and its allies to leave.

If all the involved allies would have more time, cash and will to fight then a total victory would be possible however cultural differences and the region it self is way to unstable to achieve any long lasting result at all.

This has been proven time after time after time.
Pakistan is willing to step to the plate, but is being torn to pieces from the inside out and due all the strategic intrests and its problems with india not able to fully commit.

So a true victory and a long lasting result is only made possible if the region itself calms down and start to settle, which is not very likly to happen yet.
So the moment US boots are out of the mentioned nations the normal routine of those nations will return and within a couple of years or even months everything the US and its allies have builded up will be lost.

So yes the US and its allies did achieve a partial victory, however the rebels and other factions can be granted with a victory as well as they STILL have control over atleast 60% of for example afganistan, they still have control over the drug and arms trade and still growing in number (Partly because neightbour nations allow new training camps and such to support the rebels) So its not the skill, will or lack of vision by the US that denies them to achieve what they want to achieve but its the fact that they cannot control such a huge region without crossing human barriers.

Simple fact as has been shown by the media, The US and Allies march in with troops, tanks and airplanes and cash and try to gain the trust of the locals.
Which does work during the day, but at night the same mister who did get the contract to build a hospital can lift a gun at you because if he does not then the next night his brother, sister and other relatives will be shot, hanged or worse by the taliban.
This tactic works so well that unless the US is prepared to cross those "moral" combat actions the people will never follow.
The US tries to gain control by dialog, trust, respect and mutual understanding.
While the taliban demands control by fear and i tell you from my own exp you would be suprised how effective fear is specially if you are prepared to go beyond fear and make it reality.
These kinds of horrific acts worked great against the russians who where forced to leave and this same happens again with the US and its allies.
Short said a military victory does not count as a victory in general, specially if for 90% all the efforts gained in the first 2 years already are gone, which means that after leaving all the efforts are gone.
Besides that due cultural differences and the way how things work in those nations the US and its allies with all their power and might will never be able to achieve a total victory as long there are people willing to fight and are willing to put up road bombs and killing the wife of the town chief that tried to help the US soldiers....so revenge and fear does beat the US and all its efforts hands down imo.

Ask urself the question would you follow me if i wave with 50 dollars and a new hospital and a new future?

Or would you follow the rebel group that told you plaun and simple if you work with the US troops then we will kill your kids your wife and family....

And this is exactly the point why the US lost the initiative, Momentum and end result.

Think about it.

But back on topic,

I am sure that Iran can hide some rockets and such in the mountains and it would be a real pain to find them.
On the other hand if they cannot be found they also cannot be used.
As the moment a rocket is going airborn a sattalite or a radar will pick it up.
And personally i do not believe that even the americans have rockets and such that are 100% undetectable.
I mean sats radars and all those detection methods are pretty darn good and you might be able to slip a nuke in a truck or in a airplane but its just a matter of time before someone rings the alarm bell.
So is it possible to hide them from sight? well if ur bunker is deep enough it might but still the moment you want to use them the cover has been blown specially when 75% of the total western world and direct neightbours have their eyes and sats fixed upon you.

 

[Rimasta]

The US did lose in vietnam, killing more people doesnt equal a win. Completing there objectives does and they failed majorly.
And 2 years later? The NVA where attacking as the US where evacuating.

And I think there lies the primary issue of the Vietnam War. Objectives to be completed were vague at best. The Pentagon made the huge mistake of trying to fight a war of attrition of the Asian mainland which is nothing but a bad idea. However any mission MACV had i think could have been achieved, including a hypothetical invasion of North Vietnam to force a conclusion. But not only was there no political will to do this, we didn't want a repeat of what happened in Korea with Chinese military intervention potentially starting a third world war. But in regards to maintaining the integrity of South Vietnam yes we failed ultimately, however that government was corrupt to the core and no amount of combat power could change that.

 

[My2Cents]

-

By your reasoning it would appear that wars can only be won by total genocide, because otherwise there will always been at least one survivor on the other side.

Since I doubt that is the case, please outline what a winning strategy would have been in each case, other than don’t go there at all or destroy Israel.

But back on topic,

I am sure that Iran can hide some rockets and such in the mountains and it would be a real pain to find them.
On the other hand if they cannot be found they also cannot be used.
As the moment a rocket is going airborn a sattalite or a radar will pick it up.
And personally i do not believe that even the americans have rockets and such that are 100% undetectable.
I mean sats radars and all those detection methods are pretty darn good and you might be able to slip a nuke in a truck or in a airplane but its just a matter of time before someone rings the alarm bell.
So is it possible to hide them from sight? well if ur bunker is deep enough it might but still the moment you want to use them the cover has been blown specially when 75% of the total western world and direct neightbours have their eyes and sats fixed upon you.

Don’t know how you get that “if they cannot be found they also cannot be used”, just use Shoot-and-Scoot tactics for the launchers. Of course, if the US ground surveillance systems are really good and widespread enough to monitor in all the mountain valleys on a continuous basis, you may have to go to disposable launchers or even 1-shot silos.

I never should have posted that sarcastic comment about how the Iranian super camouflage systems were so good that no one had ever saw any of their new wonder weapons in the field.

Iranian camoflage is so effective that it is impossible to locate and identify any of their new equipment.

 

[Beatmaster]

By your reasoning it would appear that wars can only be won by total genocide, because otherwise there will always been at least one survivor on the other side.

Since I doubt that is the case, please outline what a winning strategy would have been in each case, other than don’t go there at all or destroy Israel.

Don’t know how you get that “if they cannot be found they also cannot be used”, just use Shoot-and-Scoot tactics for the launchers. Of course, if the US ground surveillance systems are really good and widespread enough to monitor in all the mountain valleys on a continuous basis, you may have to go to disposable launchers or even 1-shot silos.

I never should have posted that sarcastic comment about how the Iranian super camouflage systems were so good that no one had ever saw any of their new wonder weapons in the field.

No buddy, i am not saying that genocide is the way as its NOT.
I would never support that and i would never claim that its the only way or any way at all.

Fact remains that for example the taliban uses tactic's against the civilian population that just cannot be matched by US and its allies. Obviously the US and its allies are trying to do it the right way and obviously violence and warfar is part of it.
However due the lack of time, manpower and funds a nation like afganistan cannot be converted to a democratic nation overnight or even over time.
You have to understand that cultural differences are one of the main reasons why a afgan government is very likly to fail and to be infiltrated by taliban like people which is already happening.
Having that said its obvious that the west has achieved alot in afganistan and that they are on the right track...however the odds are just against the US and its allies and thats exactly the point.

On topic yes shoot and scoot are tactic's that can be nasty and you are right.
However what i am trying to say is that geneally speaking mobile launch systems are presenting a serious danger but the true danger comes from the bigger launch systems and those systems cannot be hidden that easy.