Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

[Grand Danois]

The Miloschevich regime corrupted the economy, etc not becouse that regime did ANYTHING wrong economically or INTERNAL political decision - NO! The economy was corrupted EXACTLY becouse Miloschevich regime allienated West and suffered under sanctions.

By that argument you can blame any goverment what didnt want to surrender to its enemy and lost the war as consecuence - be it WW2 France, WW2 Poland, 1990 Kuweit or Serbia.

That is quite exotic. Not sure I understand what you mean.

I'll leave it here as it does not relate to Iran, but is getting into relativism for your part.

 

[Chrom]

Anyhow, Patriots are fine for downing Iranian BMs. The combined effect of these BMs are neglible. For comparison, the U.S. factories churns out more than six times the number of JDAMs each month than Iran have BMs in its entire inventory!

And each JDAM has more accuracy and effect on target than an Iranian BM.

Of course, that is why i said what Iranian military have no chances in direct war with USA. But limited air strikes and launching BM's from hideouts is NOT direct war - and as such Iran can do substancial damage to USA interests in region IF regular goverment is allowed to stay in charge (i.e. no land invasion). IF USA would attept such invasion - then see Iraq scenario. Even worse outcome for USA ...

P.S. I wouldnt defend Iranian goverment or Miloschevich IF some posters didnt declare them "evil". This is just wrong. When we admit what West just pursued own interests in these affairs, and Iran/Miloschevich own interests - then we can agree here.

 

[Grand Danois]

Of course, that is why i said what Iranian military have no chances in direct war with USA. But limited air strikes and launching BM's from hideouts is NOT direct war - and as such Iran can do substancial damage to USA interests in region IF regular goverment is allowed to stay in charge (i.e. no land invasion). IF USA would attept such invasion - then see Iraq scenario. Even worse outcome for USA ...

P.S. I wouldnt defend Iranian goverment or Miloschevich IF some posters didnt declare them "evil". This is just wrong. When we admit what West just pursued own interests in these affairs, and Iran/Miloschevich own interests - then we can agree here.

I didn't do a moral judgement on Milo & the Iranian leadership (and it is a sure way to degenerate any discussion here ). Of course they pursue their own interest. My comment was directed at how internal socio-economic issues drive foreign and domestic policies (interests). As such the raison d'etre of the nuclear programme is manifold.

As to the BMs, the comparison was to illustrate how very little firepower - effect/impact - a limited number of BMs have. Case in point - Hezbollah launched what - 4-5.000 battlefield rockets at Israel? With neglible effect. A pseudo capability. Iran has less than 1.000 Scud-class and above, with 60-80% succesful launch rate (if kept in good condition) and only a fraction of these are with a double digit CEP.

And not counting how many PACs, Hawks, ESSM, Standards, will pick out of the sky. (Are there any users of Hawk left in the Gulf, besides, ironically Iran?)

So if one think these will wreak havoc, what is the effect of an air campaign then? Which has the full features of target id, accurate weapons, bda, numbers...

 

[eaf-f16]

Anyhow, Patriots are fine for downing Iranian BMs.

How would you know? The PAC-3 isn't combat proven is it? IIRC, the only time the Patriot went against BM's in combat they failed almost 100% of the time and that was against highly unsophisticated short-range BM's.

 

[eaf-f16]

As to the BMs, the comparison was to illustrate how very little firepower - effect/impact - a limited number of BMs have. Case in point - Hezbollah launched what - 4-5.000 battlefield rockets at Israel? With neglible effect. A pseudo capability. Iran has less than 1.000 Scud-class and above, with 60-80% succesful launch rate (if kept in good condition) and only a fraction of these are with a double digit CEP.

And not counting how many PACs, Hawks, ESSM, Standards, will pick out of the sky. (Are there any users of Hawk left in the Gulf, besides, ironically Iran?)

So if one think these will wreak havoc, what is the effect of an air campaign then? Which has the full features of target id, accurate weapons, bda, numbers...

What Hezbollah launched are nothing compared to Iran's missiles. As far as I know the only MISSILE they launched was C-802 at an Israeli warship. And how can you possibly compare Shahab-3's to Katuha rockets?

 

[Grand Danois]

How would you know? The PAC-3 isn't combat proven is it? IIRC, the only time the Patriot went against BM's in combat they failed almost 100% of the time and that was against highly unsophisticated short-range BM's.

How do you know that they don't? That is an equal to your argument.

First, The original Patriot had high succes in its air defence, not BMD configuration during Desert Storm. Which is why amongst others, they hit the BM but not the BM warhead. Also, not that many missiles were available.

So they worked as planned.

Since then warhead has been modified, algorithms etc has been changed and tested etc., and worked as planned.

This config was tested in OIF, where they worked as planned (barring the shootdown of a Tornado and locking onto a F-16 Weasel).

Second, there is no magic taking a tactical BM down. An ESSM can do it.

 

[Grand Danois]

What Hezbollah launched are nothing compared to Iran's missiles. As far as I know the only MISSILE they launched was C-802 at an Israeli warship. And how can you possibly compare Shahab-3's to Katuha rockets?

First of all, I am comparing effect. If you read my post it is obvious that I am aware of the difference, I said battlefield rockets. And you are mixing Cruise missiles with ballistic missiles.

 

[Incognito129]

PAC success rate is abysmal. Most of the hoopla about the patriot system is to quell fears of Israeli citizens.

20 or so shahab 3 wont have any effect on Israel? You're in serious denial here.

But either way US will not be invading Iran, we would destroy ourselves and Iran at the same time. Israel doesn't have the military capability of taking on Iran let alone the strategic planning centers that are severely lacking.

 

[Incognito129]

First of all, I am comparing effect. If you read my post it is obvious that I am aware of the difference, I said battlefield rockets. And you are mixing Cruise missiles with ballistic missiles.

No actually it was you that mixed them up. You made a correlation between the two to support your opinion.

Patriot needs works, you're saying they have been improved and now they are reliable? Do you have proof of this?

 

[Grand Danois]

PAC success rate is abysmal. Most of the hoopla about the patriot system is to quell fears of Israeli citizens.

20 or so shahab 3 wont have any effect on Israel? You're in serious denial here.

But either way US will not be invading Iran, we would destroy ourselves and Iran at the same time. Israel doesn't have the military capability of taking on Iran let alone the strategic planning centers that are severely lacking.

1. Read back into my posts. You will find that effectiveness does not altermy conclusion. 20 BMs have insignificant effect.

2. Please provide substantial evidence (not word twisted analyses). That means it has to include context.

3. Effect on Israel? What, even more ineffective than the Hezbollah rockets? Yes.

BMs are psychological weapons.

As I have already written prev in this thread.

 

[Grand Danois]

No actually it was you that mixed them up. You made a correlation between the two to support your opinion.

Nope. I made the distinction on the weapon, correlated effect, which I can, as they equal except for warhead size.

Patriot needs works, you're saying they have been improved and now they are reliable? Do you have proof of this?

You have proof to suggest otherwise?

I have already suggested context & history. Test has shown it worked, so has OIF.

 

[Grand Danois]

Ballistic missilies:

Air bases closed down: 0
Military harbours closed down: 0
Outcomes of wars changed: 0
....

The only target of value ever hit was the barracks in KSA in Desert Storm. Did it close the base down, no. And it was practically undefended by PAC.

Absolutely no effect. A JDAM has more impact on average.

 

[Incognito129]

1. Read back into my posts. You will find that effectiveness does not altermy conclusion. 20 BMs have insignificant effect.

2. Please provide substantial evidence (not word twisted analyses). That means it has to include context.

3. Effect on Israel? What, even more ineffective than the Hezbollah rockets? Yes.

BMs are psychological weapons.

As I have already written prev in this thread.

effectiveness is the conclusion. You are now playing semantics.

shahab-3 vs katyusha rockets? You are in denial, these 2 aren't even comparable.

Nope. I made the distinction on the weapon, correlated effect, which I can.

you made no distinction. You're point was how because 1 is useless the other is even more useless. Why are you lying about what you said in a post thats right above yours?

You have proof to suggest otherwise.
I have already suggested context & history. Test has shown it worked, so has OIF.

There's enough proof of the patriot system's failures, I am reiterating the widely held opinion.

I'd like to see your proof of the patriot's apparent changes and new found success.

 

[Grand Danois]

effectiveness is the conclusion. You are now playing semantics.

shahab-3 vs katyusha rockets? You are in denial, these 2 aren't even comparable.

you made no distinction. You're point was how because 1 is useless the other is even more useless. Why are you lying about what you said in a post thats right above yours?

There's enough proof of the patriot system's failures, I am reiterating the widely held opinion.

I'd like to see your proof of the patriot's apparent changes and new found success.

I have never used the word useless. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Lying, no. Everyone can go back and read what I wrote. katyushas are battlefield rockets but are similar in effect. Much smaller warhead, yes, but similar CEP - and that is what matters in this comparison.

I'll open up a Patriot thread.

 

[Incognito129]

I have never used the word useless. Strawman.

Lying, no. Everyone can go back and read what I wrote. katyushas are battlefield rockets but are similar in effect. Much smaller warhead, yes, but similar CEP - and that is what matters in this comparison.

I'll open up a Patriot thread.

You definitely implied it. Are you really arguing semantics again?

You are lying.

katyusha are not comparable to shahab-3's. You can play semantics all you want they are still not comparable.

 

[Grand Danois]

You definitely implied it. Are you really arguing semantics again?

You are lying.

katyusha are not comparable to shahab-3's. You can play semantics all you want they are still not comparable.

People can read it and make up their minds. I have confidence that what I meant to say is clear in the original sentence and that only you need clarification.

 

[Incognito129]

do you have the proof of the new changes to the patriot system?

 

[Grand Danois]

do you have the proof of the new changes to the patriot system?

Can't you read? I am currently opening up a new thread on it.

And here it is:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7043

 

[eaf-f16]

How do you know that they don't? That is an equal to your argument.

No, it really isn't. I'm basing my argument on the actual past track record of the Patriot in combat. You're basing your argument on practically nothing but saying "Oh! But they've made improvements since then".

First, The original Patriot had high succes in its air defence, not BMD configuration during Desert Storm. Which is why amongst others,they hit the BM but not the BM warhead.

I always thought the warhead is what matters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that in GW1 Iraqi missiles HIT almost every single time they were fired.

Since then warhead has been modified, algorithms etc has been changed and tested etc., and worked as planned.

This config was tested in OIF, where they worked as planned (barring the shootdown of a Tornado and locking onto a F-16 Weasel).

I'm not sure if I got you're statement right but are you saying that the Patriot locked on to a friendly plane during "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? What does this have to do with stopping Shahab-3's?

And what do you mean by "barring the shootdown of a Tornado"?

Did Iraq fire any BM's during the Iraqi invasion that were stopped by the PAC-3? In fact did Iraq fire any BM's at all?

As far as I know, the PAC-3 isn't combat proven. I might be wrong. Do you have any information on the PAC-3 going against BM's in combat?:unknown

 

[Grand Danois]

No, it really isn't. I'm basing my argument on the actual past track record of the Patriot in combat. You're basing your argument on practically nothing but saying "Oh! But they've made improvements since then".

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7043

I always thought the warhead is what matters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that in GW1 Iraqi missiles HIT almost every single time they were fired.

Can't agree on the Iraqi BM. But that is for the other thread.

To have an effect on a target you need to hit multiple aimpoints with proper ordnance. A single 1 ton warhead with a 150m CEP achieves little effect. 50 30-40 kg Katyusha warheads with similar CEP will actually deliver more ordnance on target with greater confidence.

Both compared to a single aimpoint and area targets.

Thus greater impact/effect on the target. It will disrupt more

Unless you wish to deliver a huge payload on a single point, but then the single warhead loses out due to CEP.

I'm not sure if I got you're statement right but are you saying that the Patriot locked on to a friendly plane during "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? What does this have to do with stopping Shahab-3's?

And what do you mean by "barring the shootdown of a Tornado"?

Did Iraq fire any BM's during the Iraqi invasion that were stopped by the PAC-3? In fact did Iraq fire any BM's at all?

As far as I know, the PAC-3 isn't combat proven. I might be wrong. Do you have any information on the PAC-3 going against BM's in combat?:unknown

Yes, the PAC-3 shot down all Iraqi BMs it was intended to engage. 9 ouy of 9.

The Tornado (and an F-18, as I just found out), and the F-16 was meant as an example, that of course nothing is infallible. But performed well besides these incidents.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7043