Saddams' SAM sites

[metro]

You are joking, right? USA openly threat bombing Iran, may be even with nuclear weapon!!! - and you say "Israel is the only threat"? What kind a strange reality perception one should have...

I think we just have a misunderstanding in language. I was being sarcastic when asking/saying, "Israel is their [Iran's only] threat, right?"!

Iran has no problem raeching Israel as it is today (and vice-versa), the pursuit of indigenous missile technology that can reach all of Europe and the US, is the reason it is placed high on the list of priorities to be destroyed.

 

[metro]

I have no doubt that the US is able to overcome the Iranian AD with ease and is also able to destroy most static targets including a massive amount of Irans overall infrastructure. Not to talk of sinking the navy very fast.

I agree.

Destroying the armed land forces is something else.
Without the threat of a ground invasion thre is no need for Iran to mass and maneuver their formations.
The Kosovo air campaign showed us that under such circumstances it is very complicated to do serious damage to ground forces scattered and hidden in the landscape.
Even when the US decides to go low instead of avoiding the trashfire.

The CFs have Iran pretty much surrounded and could move Ground Forces into place on Iran's boarders--"playing games" to try to get Iran ground forces into the "open sand." I highly doubt that Iran didn't watch both Gulf Wars, and I can't see them doing anything but daring the US to "come right in." So, like you said, there isn't a threat of a ground invasion.

But the terrain in Iran is far different from that of Europe. I'm not sure of how much damage ground forces that don't expose themselves can do to Airpower. AAA on top of a "Hospital" can be dealt with.

Every air campaign against enemy land forces needs at least the threat of a land invasion to force the enemy to move and mass their assets.

And during such an air campaign old style AAA without radar and hidden till the last moment could be a real pain in the ass for US air assets.

I'm not sure trying to "destroy" Iranian ground forces should even be a threat (unless they decide use land forces as a threat). They have a large "division of labor" in their military. By making it clear to the "regular army," that they aren't the target of an air campaign, can put even more pressure on the Gov't worrying that the land forces may decide to turn against them.

I understand what you mean about, "last minute threats" causing a problem for an AF, but I think the abilty is there to counter it.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So Back to Missile Defense , the S-400/S-300-Tor,Buk... IMO can and will be defeated by the new generation(s) of US/CFs capabilities/tactics/assets.

Next gen comprehensive stealth that is specificaly designed to defeat IADS with S400's capabilities, very mature EA, very capable stand off weapons and HARM derivatives. I dont think the S400 will be too much of a problem technoalogicaly, not to mention tacticaly.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

JSOW needs the said massed formations to be really effective with its submunition and a JDAM is not better in hunting down enemy forces than a LGB or a Maverick.

They are alot better. both can be deployed in all weather, stand off ranges (JDAM at high altitudes) on targeting data from ISR assets like JSTARS or global hawk. Mav's and LGB's have to lased. Once the high altitude SAM threat is dealt with, anything mobile, hard or soft, is fair game. And any low altitude SAM threats that might light up a UAV doing ISR wouldn't last long. So a sustained, low risk, high altitude air campaign could pretty much desimate irans IADS, take out allmost all of their C3I, and destroy all of their mobile capability, with no low level stuff. Then your just dealing with light infantry with the occasional bit of armour. Not bad for a low risk campaign. plus yoou will desemate their logistical capability, which will be very telling if said army plans to do any real fighting. You may not be able to kill all of thier army with a sustained air campaign, but you can degrade their combat efficiency buy a huge factor.

As to countryside. There are enough mountainious areas in Iran. And there are the cities. Unless you go in with ground forces or mass bombard cities in a Dresden style (With the same amount of civilian deaths) one could hide whole armies in big cities.
There are defenitely enough big cities and mountains in Iran.

You cant hide armies, you can hide light infantry. Theres a big difference.

And you have to compare the sheer size of Iran (1.636.000 m², 11% forests) with the cramped area of the Kosovo (11.877 m²).
A huge area to search...

Then you've got annother afghanistan, which is a pain in the ass but its hardly defeat.

But with the F-22 you are defenitely right! :nutkick

I think AD may have been sarchastic when he said that. I personaly think it is. B2 LO, the best radar money can buy, and performance never before achieved on a platform. Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Waylander]

They are alot better. both can be deployed in all weather, stand off ranges (JDAM at high altitudes) on targeting data from ISR assets like JSTARS or global hawk. Mav's and LGB's have to lased. Once the high altitude SAM threat is dealt with, anything mobile, hard or soft, is fair game. And any low altitude SAM threats that might light up a UAV doing ISR wouldn't last long. So a sustained, low risk, high altitude air campaign could pretty much desimate irans IADS, take out allmost all of their C3I, and destroy all of their mobile capability, with no low level stuff. Then your just dealing with light infantry with the occasional bit of armour. Not bad for a low risk campaign. plus yoou will desemate their logistical capability, which will be very telling if said army plans to do any real fighting. You may not be able to kill all of thier army with a sustained air campaign, but you can degrade their combat efficiency buy a huge factor.

I already agreed that the US has the ability to destroy every more or less static target. For sure this degrades their ability to perform big operations.
But I didn't used the Kosovo as an example for nothing.
JSTARs was available, as well as JDAM and the sky was flooded with UAVs and Recce Planes from the various nations.
As to possible US losses.
There is a reason why the coalition avoided low level attacks during the Kosovo campaign. They didn't feared the big enemy SAMs or Air Force but the trashfire which comes up during low level runs.

You cant hide armies, you can hide light infantry. Theres a big difference.

I just gave you the numbers.
Kosovo - 11.877m², most of it mountaineous and with heavy wood. After weeks of bombing the region the serbian forces left the Kosovo nearly intact.

Iran - 1.636.000m², many mountaineous regions, 179.960m² of forest, 7 cities with more than 1 million people. And you say that you cannot hide an army there if there is no need for the army to move or mass its forces?

Then you've got annother afghanistan, which is a pain in the ass but its hardly defeat.

No. If you go in you have another Iraq but with twice the population and four times the size.

I think AD may have been sarchastic when he said that. I personaly think it is. B2 LO, the best radar money can buy, and performance never before achieved on a platform. Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that he was sarcastic. The F-22 changes nothing. The US is able to perform an air war against Iran without needing one single F-22.

@metro
My post about destroying Irans land forces was more a general look at the possibilities the US have when relying purely on air assets.

 

[Grand Danois]

EO and radar imaging has improved dramatically since the Kosovo war. What you could "see" then, you can do today from above the trashfire envelope and from further away. These systems are also much more widespread than they were then.

Target classification and techniques for negating the protection that decoys and foilage gives ground forces have also improved much, and continues to do so.

Don't expect that a wooden tank mockup with a thermal source will fool these systems.

 

[Waylander]

Ok, I believe you. You are the pros on aviation.

The problem is that with such huge cities in Iran you would not even need a single tree to hide your whole army.
Are these new systems so capable that they can find hidden material in an urban area?

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm no aviation pro. But I do know this and that about air- and spaceborne sensing systems.

The trick is to use multiple sources, active and passive, different kinds of image, MASINT and metadata correlation, and your "data quality" improves dramatically.

This pdf takes a while to download. But in particular the latter half of the imagery, you'll see how one can differentiate real targets from mockups. Also how it can see through some buildings (both topics very good on the last two slides).

http://www.sandia.gov/radar/images/ka_band_portfolio.pdf

More links:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=16248&rsbci=5&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixodarpatech/ixo_FeatureDetail.asp?id=56

 

[Waylander]

It's not that hard to be more pro than me in aviation.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Schumacher]

US has agreed to talk to Iran, a clear sign of lack of confidence in their attack plan on Iran.

 

[Grand Danois]

US has agreed to talk to Iran, a clear sign of lack of confidence in their attack plan on Iran.

Oh, don't amuse me so much just as I am about to go to bed.

There is so many better reasons as to why an attack on Iran is not the best option.

 

[Schumacher]

Oh, don't amuse me so much just as I am about to go to bed.

There is so many better reasons as to why an attack on Iran is not the best option.

You seem to have misunderstood. Agreeing to talks is an indication the US is starting to realize an attack is a very bad option, and not the reason why it is one as you seem to say.
You thought I meant the reason US considers an attack a bad option is because of their intense desire to exchange pleasantries with Iran ?

 

[Grand Danois]

You seem to have misunderstood. Agreeing to talks is an indication the US is starting to realize an attack is a very bad option, and not the reason why it is one as you seem to say.

Precision of language is a good thing. I thought you meant that the US had realised that it couldn't prosecute an attack from a purely military perspective.

You thought I meant the reason US considers an attack a bad option is because of their intense desire to exchange pleasantries with Iran ?

Well, pleasentries with Iranian diplomats requires immense amounts of patience, as it is an exercise in semantics, going in circles and not addressing the point.

Kudos to whoever is on the other side of that table.

 

[ELP]

For the U.S., SAMs won't stop the mail from getting through. They will only delay the process some.

 

[metro]

You seem to have misunderstood. Agreeing to talks is an indication the US is starting to realize an attack is a very bad option, and not the reason why it is one as you seem to say.
You thought I meant the reason US considers an attack a bad option is because of their intense desire to exchange pleasantries with Iran ?

Bush to Dr. Rice: "How were your discussions with the Iranians"?

Dr. Rice: "I can tell you that we did not see, eye to eye."

Bush: "What happened"?

Dr. Rice: "My presentation was extremely clear to them. I can now confirm to you that they have no intentions in engaging in transparent negotiations. In fact they seemed to find the entire idea quite offensive"!

Bush: "So what's your advice? How do you think we should handle them"?

Dr. Rice: "Make sure to cover my ass, but having said that, bomb them"!

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I already agreed that the US has the ability to destroy every more or less static target. For sure this degrades their ability to perform big operations.
But I didn't used the Kosovo as an example for nothing.
JSTARs was available, as well as JDAM and the sky was flooded with UAVs and Recce Planes from the various nations.
As to possible US losses.
There is a reason why the coalition avoided low level attacks during the Kosovo campaign. They didn't feared the big enemy SAMs or Air Force but the trashfire which comes up during low level runs.

I wasnt just refering to static targets like infistructure, but the Iranaian whole mobile and motorised logistical capability. All of their hard stuff, not to mention thier soft stuff would be fair game as soon as it moved, and to some extent even if it didnt. The bigest headache to the Iranian army would be supplying or moving their men in the field. Thats a real degrasion of their fighting capability. look at what the air campaign did to irqie "heavy" formations in GW I & II.

I just gave you the numbers.
Kosovo - 11.877m², most of it mountaineous and with heavy wood. After weeks of bombing the region the serbian forces left the Kosovo nearly intact.

Iran - 1.636.000m², many mountaineous regions, 179.960m² of forest, 7 cities with more than 1 million people. And you say that you cannot hide an army there if there is no need for the army to move or mass its forces?

Then that army is useless. Anyway if your just going for an air campaign you can still deceimate a forces capability without killing them. Even mostly intact the Iranian military would probably come out of a sustained air campaign by the USAF/USN with 10% of its war fighting capability. So then its only use would be as part of a low intencity guirilla force on its own ground. It would have virtualy no offencive capability at all.

No. If you go in you have another Iraq but with twice the population and four times the size.

Thats if you want to go in, and i dont see why. Containment did work for Iraq
before we desided to go in, and now look at the mess. Containment + a sustained Air Campaign would do just fine.

I know that he was sarcastic. The F-22 changes nothing. The US is able to perform an air war against Iran without needing one single F-22.

F22 allways changes something. but the USAF still have more than the capability needed to handle irans IADS with minimal risk.

 

[metro]

They are alot better. both can be deployed in all weather, stand off ranges (JDAM at high altitudes) on targeting data from ISR assets like JSTARS or global hawk. Mav's and LGB's have to lased. Once the high altitude SAM threat is dealt with, anything mobile, hard or soft, is fair game. And any low altitude SAM threats that might light up a UAV doing ISR wouldn't last long. So a sustained, low risk, high altitude air campaign could pretty much desimate irans IADS, take out allmost all of their C3I, and destroy all of their mobile capability, with no low level stuff. Then your just dealing with light infantry with the occasional bit of armour. Not bad for a low risk campaign. plus yoou will desemate their logistical capability, which will be very telling if said army plans to do any real fighting. You may not be able to kill all of thier army with a sustained air campaign, but you can degrade their combat efficiency buy a huge factor.

Playing Devil's advocat, I do see some potential problems (have smome questions too).

1) In an attack on Iran, I see the potential problem of Iranian cities close to the boearder's of its neighbors, of launching a Hizbollah "like," Katushas attack. I'm not sure how launchers on the rofs of hosing buildings will be dealt with. The same problem will most likely exist with thse launchers near or next to buildings. Tha Fajr-3++ can also be parked near any "civillian building," and with it's extended range, and who knows what warheaad, this could cause a pain in the ass for those places within range. Also, Hizbollah used what are basically "shipping containers" in the rooms of apartment/condo buldings, which were placed on different flloors and seem impossible to get at without briging down the building (and her come the lawyers).

2) What are the best MANPADS that iran has, the SA-18?

3) I understand that are capabilities to determine "clutter" from a real threat has significantly improved, but with CF aircraft, drones and dcoys flying over Iran, is it difficult to detect and destroy an Iranian launch of a smaller UAV carrying "some" payload, from a boarder city that is intended to hit a neighboring country's building or US/CF Base?

 

[metro]

The problem is that with such huge cities in Iran you would not even need a single tree to hide your whole army.
Are these new systems so capable that they can find hidden material in an urban area?

Perhaps, we could slip the Iranians a message through a back handed route, that "hiiden material," burried in urban areas, needs a tree planted over these areas to provide shade for the "hidden materials/weapons" in order to lengthen their ability to use!

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Playing Devil's advocat, I do see some potential problems (have smome questions too).

1) In an attack on Iran, I see the potential problem of Iranian cities close to the boearder's of its neighbors, of launching a Hizbollah "like," Katushas attack. I'm not sure how launchers on the rofs of hosing buildings will be dealt with. The same problem will most likely exist with thse launchers near or next to buildings. Tha Fajr-3++ can also be parked near any "civillian building," and with it's extended range, and who knows what warheaad, this could cause a pain in the ass for those places within range. Also, Hizbollah used what are basically "shipping containers" in the rooms of apartment/condo buldings, which were placed on different flloors and seem impossible to get at without briging down the building (and her come the lawyers).

This type of small scale, low acuracy, low damae threat is pretty inconsequential in the big picture. It may indeed be very hard to stop, but its real military valua is also minimal. Its only real value is its political.

irans offensive capability would have been degraded from large scale combined arms conventional warfare with mechanised formations with arty and air support to hizbolallah style pinprick rocket attacks.

2) What are the best MANPADS that iran has, the SA-18?

SA 17/18 i guess (someone better informed might shed some light). But they wont have any effect on a high/mid altitutde air cammpaign.

3) I understand that are capabilities to determine "clutter" from a real threat has significantly improved, but with CF aircraft, drones and dcoys flying over Iran, is it difficult to detect and destroy an Iranian launch of a smaller UAV carrying "some" payload, from a boarder city that is intended to hit a neighboring country's building or US/CF Base?

But smaller UAV's are slow and would not be LO at all unless they are really small. And the smaller it is the smaller the payload (which isn't much anyway). I'm sure a desent sized UAV flying at a decent altitude, slow and in a streight line would be easy pickings for CF's AF/SAM's in Iraq or turkeys IADS.

Again these small scale attacks are more annoying than anything and play a tiny part of the entire military campaign. They do have a larger political role though.

 

[Waylander]

I wasnt just refering to static targets like infistructure, but the Iranaian whole mobile and motorised logistical capability. All of their hard stuff, not to mention thier soft stuff would be fair game as soon as it moved, and to some extent even if it didnt. The bigest headache to the Iranian army would be supplying or moving their men in the field. Thats a real degrasion of their fighting capability. look at what the air campaign did to irqie "heavy" formations in GW I & II.

But they don't need to move their forces. Why should they? They know that the US is not going to go in.
And during ODS most of the killing of the enemy mech formations was done by ground forces. During OIF there were not that many enemy heavy formations left which tried to fight.

Then that army is useless. Anyway if your just going for an air campaign you can still deceimate a forces capability without killing them. Even mostly intact the Iranian military would probably come out of a sustained air campaign by the USAF/USN with 10% of its war fighting capability. So then its only use would be as part of a low intencity guirilla force on its own ground. It would have virtualy no offencive capability at all.

No it is not useless. They save their army for later. For sure they are not able to launch any usefull operations during the US air campaign. But the US will not have that many air assets in the region forever.

Thats if you want to go in, and i dont see why. Containment did work for Iraq
before we desided to go in, and now look at the mess. Containment + a sustained Air Campaign would do just fine.

No it's not fine. Or what do you want to stay forever with large forces in Iraq. Iran will defenitely going to play a really hard game in Iraq after an US air campaign.