Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Israel - Iran Power Comparison 2023

Rate this topic


Muslim2010

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

 

"Israel vs Iran Military Power Comparison 2023 covers all major defense parameters to compare Iran vs Israel Power Comparison 2023 here you can find how powerful is Israel Military Power 2023 and How powerful is Iran Military Power 2023 one can also find who is the most powerful country between Israel and Iran In this Israel vs Iran Military Comparison you can find Israeli airforce vs irani airforce irani navy vs Israeli navy israeli army vs irani land forces comparison."

The above may be seen as a preliminary information.  

Final conclusion can not be drawn as many of the defense capabilities of Iran have been kept hidden, i assume.

Any remarks from SC members will be appreciated.

wasalam

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Veteran Member

The recent comparison of  capabilities both countries as made by Aljazeera is presented below:

Iran and Israel: What are their attack and defence capabilities? | Israel-Palestine conflict News | Al Jazeera

INTERACTIVE-Military head-to-head- Iran and Israel -OCT 2-2024 copy 2-1727880637

However some factors need to be updated due to the recent provision of equipment and military aid by Russia to Iran.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

A lot of the military comparisons are pointless.  Like it doesn't matter how many tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, or helicopters one or the other has.  Neither country has the ability to invade the other, and those are all short range systems or useful only in seizing territory.  

The only thing that matters is long range missiles, and air craft, and air defense systems.  Iran clearly has a large aresenal of missiles.  Unclear how many are old and unreliable, and how many are newer and more advanced and capable.  Drones can easily be shot down by the Iron Dome.  As can some cruise missiles.  Only the ballistic missiles really can penetrate air defenses of Israel.  But now the US is deploying the THAAD system to help defend Israel.  I think only one battery though.  Probably as a deterrant more than anything.

Iran doesn't even have S400, let alone the latest S500.  I think they only have S300.  Israel has substantially better missile defense systems.  I know some of the children on this board will boast about how it didn't work, but so far there is no evidence that any more than 25-40% of Iran's missiles penetrated last time.  Of course in a larger scale attack, more missiles would be launched, and interception rates would likely decrease.  However it appears as though, whether intentionally or not, the accuracy of the missiles is borderline.

Israel has plenty of cruise missiles, and we've seen them easily penetrate Syrian air space, as well as destroy a radar site in Iran (that was a missile defense system, I think).  Air force wise, Iran's planes are old.  And due to sanctions they can't fly them as often, so their pilots lack training compared to Israeli pilots.  And because Iran's neighbors have sold out to Israel, it wouldn't surprise me if they allow Israel use of their air space for an attack on Iran.  However, this would be extremely high risk, and I doubt they would do it.  A single F35 getting shot down in Iran would mean China would get their hands on it and be able to get into all the western systems and learn how to track and shoot them down.  

Navy wise, I don't think Iran can project Naval power.  It would be very easy for Israel to attack Iranian vessels if they venture too far away.  And Israel just has to sit back.  The US also has very good anti-submarine technology, which would likely make Iranian subs high risk targets as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, coldcow said:

Israel has plenty of cruise missiles, and we've seen them easily penetrate Syrian air space, as well as destroy a radar site in Iran (that was a missile defense system, I think).  Air force wise, Iran's planes are old.  And due to sanctions they can't fly them as often, so their pilots lack training compared to Israeli pilots.  And because Iran's neighbors have sold out to Israel, it wouldn't surprise me if they allow Israel use of their air space for an attack on Iran.  However, this would be extremely high risk, and I doubt they would do it. 

Salam this is your typical nonsense about exaggeration about Zionist Israel based on zionist propaganda which only naive people likewise you accept such nonsense which you propaganda about zionist military myth has became a boring propaganda by you  which only concern of Iran Iran is through so called Azerbaijan state which is both proxy of Turkey & sold out country to rogue state of Israel which already is under constant supervision of Iran Army which your nonsense about lack of training of Iranian pilots &  having old planes just has came from pure zionist propaganda which Iran has kept military information about planes & pilots ambiguous for military reasons which you stereotypical zionist propaganda has no new  point .

10 hours ago, coldcow said:

Drones can easily be shot down by the Iron Dome.  As can some cruise missiles.  Only the ballistic missiles really can penetrate air defenses of Israel.  But now the US is deploying the THAAD system to help defend Israel.  I think only one battery though.  Probably as a deterrant more than anything.

This absolutely a pure joke from you :blabla:which your nonsesne about Iron dome has been refuted by first operation of true promise while still naive people likewise you are exaggerating about so called Iron dome by neglecting unrefutable facts about malfunctioning of so called Iron dome against Yemenian , Iraqi & iranian drones & missiles multiple times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, coldcow said:

But now the US is deploying the THAAD system to help defend Israel.  I think only one battery though.  Probably as a deterrant more than anything.

It's just a cause of joking about both of rogue zionist Israel & America which is just totally a political show off by America fro showing it's totall support from rogue zionist Israel ; which even according to wikipedia page of it , it has had more failure than success in overall of all tests which also it has not used in a real war which is anti Balistic just in theory ; which for both of UAE & KSA it has been pointless which Yemenis could hit Aramco oil facility & some parts of UAE wih their missiles although both of these countries have been protected by cutting edge American anti missile systems:einstein::grin::NH:

US is removing Patriot anti-missile systems from Saudi Arabia

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8300943/US-removing-Patriot-anti-missile-systems-Saudi-Arabia.html

 

Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites

The U.S. is having trouble defending against low-flying drones and cruise missiles after years of the Pentagon focusing on longer-range threats.
Quote

In theory, the oil facilities both lay under the defensive umbrella of Patriot PAC-2 surface-to-air missile batteries that the U.S. sold to Saudi Arabia to intercept aircraft and missiles up to 100 miles away. However, if Saudi radars detected the 18 triangular drones and seven cruise missiles (judging by recovered debris) that bombarded them last week, they did so too late. Instead, they were forced to fire sporadically with automatic weapons, which didn’t prevent widespread damage that temporarily disrupted shipments of 5.7 million barrels of oil daily — half of Saudi Arabia’s output.

 

Quote

In the meantime, to fulfill a congressional mandate to obtain a stop-gap defense system against cruise missiles, the Pentagon announced plans in 2019 to take the rare step of purchasing arms not entirely American-made. The military purchased two batteries of the Iron Dome air defense system Israel developed with help from the U.S. to shoot down unguided rockets fired by Palestinian militants. However, the missiles used ainterceptors still cost around $40,000 dollars each, while commercial drones may cost considerably less. Thus drones could potentially overwhelm existing defenses with sheer numbers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-sending-troops-saudi-arabia-shows-short-range-air-defenses-ncna1057461

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
16 hours ago, coldcow said:

The only thing that matters is long range missiles, and air craft, and air defense systems.  Iran clearly has a large aresenal of missiles.  Unclear how many are old and unreliable, and how many are newer and more advanced and capable.  Drones can easily be shot down by the Iron Dome.  As can some cruise missiles.  Only the ballistic missiles really can penetrate air defenses of Israel.  But now the US is deploying the THAAD system to help defend Israel.  I think only one battery though.  Probably as a deterrant more than anything.

Iran doesn't even have S400, let alone the latest S500.  I think they only have S300.  Israel has substantially better missile defense systems.  I know some of the children on this board will boast about how it didn't work, but so far there is no evidence that any more than 25-40% of Iran's missiles penetrated last time.  Of course in a larger scale attack, more missiles would be launched, and interception rates would likely decrease.  However it appears as though, whether intentionally or not, the accuracy of the missiles is borderline.

Israel has plenty of cruise missiles, and we've seen them easily penetrate Syrian air space, as well as destroy a radar site in Iran (that was a missile defense system, I think).  Air force wise, Iran's planes are old.  And due to sanctions they can't fly them as often, so their pilots lack training compared to Israeli pilots.  And because Iran's neighbors have sold out to Israel, it wouldn't surprise me if they allow Israel use of their air space for an attack on Iran.  However, this would be extremely high risk, and I doubt they would do it.  A single F35 getting shot down in Iran would mean China would get their hands on it and be able to get into all the western systems and learn how to track and shoot them down.  

Navy wise, I don't think Iran can project Naval power.  It would be very easy for Israel to attack Iranian vessels if they venture too far away.  And Israel just has to sit back.  The US also has very good anti-submarine technology, which would likely make Iranian subs high risk targets as well.

The statement given in blue is an evidence of some conscious wording.

The rest of the words are evidence of a someone living fully under the influence of propaganda being made by European and American media like not updating the knowledge for facts present in real world now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

https://t.me/warfareanalysis/93777

 

Former head of IRGC international relations, General Sardar Ebrahim Rostami:

 

'We have several capabilities that are more powerful than Nuclear Weapons'

 

@Ashvazdanghe @Hasani Samnani

 

Hydrogen bombs? 

 

 

Edited by mahmood8726
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/15/2024 at 9:30 AM, mahmood8726 said:

Former head of IRGC international relations, General Sardar Ebrahim Rostami:

 

'We have several capabilities that are more powerful than Nuclear Weapons'

Salam surely it's not a Weapon of Mass Murder likewise Hydrogen bombs & etc although nobody except few military commanders knew about this new cutting edge technology which we only make guess about what is not the Weapon of Mass Murder but can be more powerful than current  Nuclear Weapons likewise rumors about  EMP weapon & etc .:censored:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

16 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

Hydrogen bombs? 

Addendum

A non-nuclear EMP (NNEMP) must come from inside the weapon. This type of EMP does not require a nuclear detonation and can be generated by other means such as an electrical discharge or an intense magnetic field.

Quote

What Is A Non-Nuclear EMP?

A non-nuclear EMP (NNEMP) must come from inside the weapon. This type of EMP does not require a nuclear detonation and can be generated by other means such as an electrical discharge or an intense magnetic field.

 

Quote

What Are The Effects Of Nuclear And Non-Nuclear EMPs?

The effects of both types of EMPs can be devastating. A NEMP can cause widespread destruction due to its wide reach, while a NNEMP can cause localized destruction due to its limited reach.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are significant differences between nuclear and non-nuclear electromagnetic pulses (EMPs). Nuclear EMPs have a much greater reach than non-nuclear EMPs due to their initial pulse, but both types can cause serious damage if left unprotected. Fortunately, there are steps that can be taken to protect against both types of EMPs such as shielding electronic devices with Faraday cages or surge protectors and hardening critical infrastructure such as power grids and communication networks.

https://www.emp-attack.net/what-is-the-difference-between-a-nuclear-emp-and-a-non-nuclear-emp#:~:text=A non-nuclear EMP (NNEMP) must come from inside,an electrical discharge or an intense magnetic field.

Quote

Electromagnetic weapons

A similar evolution is in progress in the broader area of military operations at sea, on land, in the air, and in space. Focused high-power electromagnetic weapons soon will be able to disable an aircraft carrier battle group in seconds; destroy the electronics of land-based aircraft before they can launch their weapons; knock out vital communications, surveillance, weather, and command and control spacecraft without warning; and leave ground forces as blind and cutoff from each other as those during the American Revolution. Meanwhile, the enemy would retain cutting-edge military capabilities.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/power/article/14072339/emp-high-power-electromagnetic-weapons-railguns-microwaves

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, root said:

Air superiority has changed from who has more and better planes to who has more and better missiles and drones. Then the situation becomes very complex speaking of who can bother the other party the most. 

I remeber last year and expert on this, stated drones will make planes obsolete. Were seeing the beginning of that phase. Too bad America, the west and Israel are lagging behind and are instead spending their money on expensive planes and expensive million dollar drones, whilst Iran for example did the very smart thing of investing into the Ak-47 of drone tech. Their missile system is also incredible too. It's why Iran has terrible planes, Iran couldn't care much for its airforce, they focused on where it mattered and where they knew they would have the most chances.

Edited by mahmood8726
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 10/15/2024 at 11:28 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

It's just a cause of joking about both of rogue zionist Israel & America which is just totally a political show off by America fro showing it's totall support from rogue zionist Israel ; which even according to wikipedia page of it , it has had more failure than success in overall of all tests which also it has not used in a real war which is anti Balistic just in theory ; which for both of UAE & KSA it has been pointless which Yemenis could hit Aramco oil facility & some parts of UAE wih their missiles although both of these countries have been protected by cutting edge American anti missile systems:einstein::grin::NH:

US is removing Patriot anti-missile systems from Saudi Arabia

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8300943/US-removing-Patriot-anti-missile-systems-Saudi-Arabia.html

 

Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites

The U.S. is having trouble defending against low-flying drones and cruise missiles after years of the Pentagon focusing on longer-range threats.

Let me quote that Inshallah THAAD will prove to be a THAND means Cool (in Urdu) ie doing nothing similar to Iron Dome that has been found to be a "I Run Dome" like someone who is running from the battle field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 10/14/2024 at 11:04 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

nonsense about lack of training of Iranian pilots &  having old planes just has came from pure zionist propaganda which Iran has kept military information about planes & pilots ambiguous for military reasons which you stereotypical zionist propaganda has no new  point .

 

9 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

It's why Iran has terrible planes, Iran couldn't care much for its airforce, they focused on where it mattered and where they knew they would have the most chances.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  Although, the two of you just contradicted each other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
12 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

I remeber last year and expert on this, stated drones will make planes obsolete. Were seeing the beginning of that phase. Too bad America, the west and Israel are lagging behind and are instead spending their money on expensive planes and expensive million dollar drones, whilst Iran for example did the very smart thing of investing into the Ak-47 of drone tech. Their missile system is also incredible too. It's why Iran has terrible planes, Iran couldn't care much for its airforce, they focused on where it mattered and where they knew they would have the most chances.

Drones have not and will not at least in the near future replace the human pilot in modern militaries for several reasons of which include tactical realities, military bureaucracy, politics, and technology progression. You are correct that it is foreseeable that a future generation of stealth fighters for example may be unmanned, but there are many hurdles. For one, the 6th generation NGAD program is not an unmanned platform, indicating that this is not something envisioned to be developmentally ready. Although the US Air Force has moved into a direction that incorporates military aircraft as controllers over and supported by unmanned combat drones meant to cooperate with platforms like the F-35 Lightening in contested airspaces, direct human intervention in the cockpit is still present. This may be because of the sensitivity of remote control and its vulnerability to electronic warfare solutions. It would be hard to propose to congress a multi-hundred million dollar fighter jet asset that could have connection interrupted from the pilot on sorties potentially far away from FOBs in enemy territory. Evidently, artificial intelligence is another technology that has to observe sufficient parallel progress to ensure success for mission-critical unmanned aerial assets. More importantly, pivoting to rely primarily on unmanned platforms to substitute the roles of legacy fighter aircraft like the F-16 and F-15 changes the personnel and training architecture of the Air Force in a way that undermines both its political lobby and interservice traditions. In other words, in the military-industrial complex of the modern militaries of the West, adopting unmanned platforms into the most critical and complex mission profiles—while also practically necessitating direct human control—represents too much change for a well-established system that benefits immensely from the way things currently are.


For Iran, the decision to invest into the "AK-47 of drone tech" occurred during the war with Iraq because Iran recognized several realities: 1) it did not have the intellectual and manufacturing base to support the production of fighter aircraft or other complicated systems 2) due to sanctions it would always remain limited in procuring certain specific materials, components, and technologies (evidenced by its aging fleet and difficulty even now in obtaining spare parts) 3) it did not have the military budget to support this regardless. Iran's focus on drones does not necessarily prove that drones are what ultimately matters, but demonstrates that the country adapted to substitute their defense and operational needs by embracing at the time an emerging technology. It's also important to note that strategic air dominance is not exactly important for a nation that primarily relies on religious and diplomatic levers as well as asymmetric warfare to accomplish its goals, in which its current missile and drone arsenal fits perfectly.

 

Also watch this: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators

On paper...purely comparing numbers....then israel wins on many comparisons, such as number of planes and quality. Or number of bombers etc. But comparing numbers like that when comparing military might is very naive. Even in our own Islamic history we have been outnumbered, not only with men but also horses(f-35) and camels(bombers) and still won due to superior tactics combined with faith.

 

I could have a butterknife and take any decent person on shiachat, hold their child with a butterknife and they could have all the might and firepower in the world and they still wouldn't be able to do anything. Yes I know, brutal example, but imagine that child being the oil fields, and the highway for 95% of all imports to the western world. What good can 2000 f-35s do if i can easily stop those? Military power is not just about bigger guns, but how you use them, where you use them, when you use them, which tactical positions you have etc. Combine that with an arsenal of missiles that can travel from 2000km away with enough accuracy to go in your ventilation system while you are taking a shower, then you have a potent mix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
On 10/15/2024 at 2:04 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this is your typical nonsense about exaggeration about Zionist Israel based on zionist propaganda which only naive people likewise you accept such nonsense which you propaganda about zionist military myth has became a boring propaganda by you  which only concern of Iran Iran is through so called Azerbaijan state which is both proxy of Turkey & sold out country to rogue state of Israel which already is under constant supervision of Iran Army which your nonsense about lack of training of Iranian pilots &  having old planes just has came from pure zionist propaganda which Iran has kept military information about planes & pilots ambiguous for military reasons which you stereotypical zionist propaganda has no new  point .

This absolutely a pure joke from you :blabla:which your nonsesne about Iron dome has been refuted by first operation of true promise while still naive people likewise you are exaggerating about so called Iron dome by neglecting unrefutable facts about malfunctioning of so called Iron dome against Yemenian , Iraqi & iranian drones & missiles multiple times. 

An honest and fair approach in the present intelligence space dominated by propaganda from both sides is to accept that while Israel's defense systems in some case are effective against countering some drone and missile threats, interception is extremely expensive and Operation True Promise 2 demonstrated that Israel does not possess an adequately proportional interception capability via David's Arrow and other systems for Iran's ballistic and hypersonic missile attacks. It goes without saying that a slow, low-altitude drone without stealth solutions is very susceptible to interception from Iron Dome. But it is also important to note that the conversation is nuanced and that Iran and its partners have successfully employed stealth drones. Assessing damage from any of Iran's attacks, and determining a factual conclusion about tactical efficacy, will obviously be very difficult as we have limited information, as the resolution of publicly available satellite imagery by law over Israel is reduced and offers little, while Planet Labs (one of a few live satellite imagery vendors) has only released one image of a small section of Nevatim Air Base for example. Unfortunately, facts are difficult to come by in this conflict.

 

Sentinel HUB EO Browser (Nevatim Air base): https://sentinelshare.page.link/TqCP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
13 hours ago, Dreamcatcher said:

 

 

 

An implicit political role US military leadership has is to over-exaggerate emerging threats to secure additional funding. While corruption is often involved, this is not always true and this model is just the way the military-industrial complex, which is at the intersection of government and massive corporations, functions presently in the West. This is not to the say that the threat is unfounded however. The use of Iranian drones like shahed in Ukraine has shown that swarm attacks of cheap drones in a conventional near-peer war is a real challenge (especially considering cost exchange ratio) for a Western system of equipment that emphasizes costly, precision solutions.

 

Cost and Value in Air and Missile Defense Intercepts: https://www.csis.org/analysis/cost-and-value-air-and-missile-defense-intercepts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
1 hour ago, root said:

On paper...purely comparing numbers....then israel wins on many comparisons, such as number of planes and quality. Or number of bombers etc. But comparing numbers like that when comparing military might is very naive. Even in our own Islamic history we have been outnumbered, not only with men but also horses(f-35) and camels(bombers) and still won due to superior tactics combined with faith.

 

I could have a butterknife and take any decent person on shiachat, hold their child with a butterknife and they could have all the might and firepower in the world and they still wouldn't be able to do anything. Yes I know, brutal example, but imagine that child being the oil fields, and the highway for 95% of all imports to the western world. What good can 2000 f-35s do if i can easily stop those? Military power is not just about bigger guns, but how you use them, where you use them, when you use them, which tactical positions you have etc. Combine that with an arsenal of missiles that can travel from 2000km away with enough accuracy to go in your ventilation system while you are taking a shower, then you have a potent mix. 

You are absolutely correct although your analogy. But it is maybe important to flesh out some nuance. The nuclear option (taking out the oil fields wholesale and closing the straight of Hormuz) suffers the consequence of being the nuclear option. Doing so is a proposed threat that exists outside of practical and constant application of kinetic force (except when Iran and its partners occasionally hits the US in Syria and the Gulf Countries), which is contrasted against an aircraft carrier group for example as a tool of force projection in the region—however one feels about their vulnerability in the modern largely asymmetric, contested theater of war—which offers a tangible and proportional capability and mission set. The proportionality of attacks on oil fields partial or complete also suffers the consequence of compromising the global economy which may instead provoke resistance by a much larger coalition including the US, which is to say that it amounts to an extreme and unwanted outcome, which is what occurred during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Basically the power rests in the ability to do so which itself is defeated by actually carrying out the act which is similar to the exact power that rests in nuclear weapons. Highlighting this point is important to identifying Iran's need to expand and deepen its means of force projection.

 

It is also an exaggeration to say that the Iranian missile arsenal includes those with the accuracy in your description. Iran's own internal testing claimed a circular error of probability of 100-300 meters (estimated by third party at 2,500 m) at 2000 km for the Emad missile. However, the Russian Iskandar has been revealed to have a 200 meters circular error probable at 300 km range. The North Korean Hwasong-7, of which Iran has a few, has an estimated circular error probable of 2,000 m at max range of 1,500 km. The American Pershing 2 from the mid 70s at a range of 1,700 km has a circular error probable of 30 m. The conclusion one should draw from this is that the accuracy claims for Iranian missiles should be questioned at least. Conservatively, we may be obliged to say that the most advanced MRBMs from Iran may not have a worse accuracy than the American Pershing 2, because industrially Iran cannot be said to behind America from the 70s in terms of missile technology. However, realistically we should also be ready to assume that a CEP in the thousands is fair considering inertial guidance packages for Iranian the majority of MRBMs, although impressive, high levels of accuracy have been reported and verified for significantly smaller Iranian missiles that use GPS/GLONASS guidance such as Fath-360 (IISS); this reflects maybe limitations in accuracy considering payload size, range, and cost. The open source intelligence publicly available may never be able to fulfill a complete and accurate view.

 

What's the solution strategically for giving Iran a credible force multiplier and solves the issues discussed in the first paragraph? Iran must seek to be able to pinpoint strike anywhere in the region it wants with a massive payload or just enough to eliminate a single individual or many hundreds of accurate missiles. While Operation True Promise II was successful in many respects, it remains unclear if it achieved the destruction of its intended targets being the Mossad HQ and several bases at which Israel's two battalions of F-35s are stationed. While, as mentioned previously, it is difficult to assess accurately the full extent of the damage, it is obvious that these bases have not been completely destroyed even from low-resolution sat imagery. This evidences the point that while the Iranian missile arsenal is diverse and impressive, there is much more development needed to achieve better force projection and tactical outcomes. This might simultaneously be benefited by an improvement in its air power. For example, air launched cruise missiles offer extended range and increased payload without sacrificing CEP accuracy. While Iran may never need to employ its Air Force in a conventional conflict, even when it receives the Sukhoi jets, it would still benefit its current operational needs in opposing Israel and combating extremist insurgents in low-intensity border and internal conflicts.

 

Maybe the army of Imam Zaman (ajtfs) is a high-tech one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, coldcow said:

Hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  Although, the two of you just contradicted each other.

Salam lol you have mixed news about commercial airplanes with jet fighters which everyone knows that Iran has terrible commercial airplanes due to Inhuman sanctions by America  but on the other hand Iran has kept information about it's jet fighters secret & ambiguous in similar fashion of information about it's war drones which  although of MSM propaganda Iran ha not a crash of jet fighters while there has been news about crashing commercial airplanes which suffers from inhuman sanctions of America & mismanagement of politician officials who have wanted to solve problem of commercial airplanes through JCPOA & buying commercial airplanes from westerner countries instead of self reliance on Iranian engineers in similar fashion of Iran military . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
7 hours ago, Shiajuice said:

You are absolutely correct although your analogy. But it is maybe important to flesh out some nuance. The nuclear option (taking out the oil fields wholesale and closing the straight of Hormuz) suffers the consequence of being the nuclear option. Doing so is a proposed threat that exists outside of practical and constant application of kinetic force (except when Iran and its partners occasionally hits the US in Syria and the Gulf Countries), which is contrasted against an aircraft carrier group for example as a tool of force projection in the region—however one feels about their vulnerability in the modern largely asymmetric, contested theater of war—which offers a tangible and proportional capability and mission set. The proportionality of attacks on oil fields partial or complete also suffers the consequence of compromising the global economy which may instead provoke resistance by a much larger coalition including the US, which is to say that it amounts to an extreme and unwanted outcome, which is what occurred during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Basically the power rests in the ability to do so which itself is defeated by actually carrying out the act which is similar to the exact power that rests in nuclear weapons. Highlighting this point is important to identifying Iran's need to expand and deepen its means of force projection.

 

It is also an exaggeration to say that the Iranian missile arsenal includes those with the accuracy in your description. Iran's own internal testing claimed a circular error of probability of 100-300 meters (estimated by third party at 2,500 m) at 2000 km for the Emad missile. However, the Russian Iskandar has been revealed to have a 200 meters circular error probable at 300 km range. The North Korean Hwasong-7, of which Iran has a few, has an estimated circular error probable of 2,000 m at max range of 1,500 km. The American Pershing 2 from the mid 70s at a range of 1,700 km has a circular error probable of 30 m. The conclusion one should draw from this is that the accuracy claims for Iranian missiles should be questioned at least. Conservatively, we may be obliged to say that the most advanced MRBMs from Iran may not have a worse accuracy than the American Pershing 2, because industrially Iran cannot be said to behind America from the 70s in terms of missile technology. However, realistically we should also be ready to assume that a CEP in the thousands is fair considering inertial guidance packages for Iranian the majority of MRBMs, although impressive, high levels of accuracy have been reported and verified for significantly smaller Iranian missiles that use GPS/GLONASS guidance such as Fath-360 (IISS); this reflects maybe limitations in accuracy considering payload size, range, and cost. The open source intelligence publicly available may never be able to fulfill a complete and accurate view.

 

What's the solution strategically for giving Iran a credible force multiplier and solves the issues discussed in the first paragraph? Iran must seek to be able to pinpoint strike anywhere in the region it wants with a massive payload or just enough to eliminate a single individual or many hundreds of accurate missiles. While Operation True Promise II was successful in many respects, it remains unclear if it achieved the destruction of its intended targets being the Mossad HQ and several bases at which Israel's two battalions of F-35s are stationed. While, as mentioned previously, it is difficult to assess accurately the full extent of the damage, it is obvious that these bases have not been completely destroyed even from low-resolution sat imagery. This evidences the point that while the Iranian missile arsenal is diverse and impressive, there is much more development needed to achieve better force projection and tactical outcomes. This might simultaneously be benefited by an improvement in its air power. For example, air launched cruise missiles offer extended range and increased payload without sacrificing CEP accuracy. While Iran may never need to employ its Air Force in a conventional conflict, even when it receives the Sukhoi jets, it would still benefit its current operational needs in opposing Israel and combating extremist insurgents in low-intensity border and internal conflicts.

 

Maybe the army of Imam Zaman (ajtfs) is a high-tech one?

1. Who cares about third party? Just a quick search and i saw where you got your numbers from, you can do better than that. All pictures show they hit target every time. Been proven over and over again in syria, RQ stealh, and now in palestine. 

2. There is a difference between Ballistics, cruise and hypersonic, land to sea, sea to sea, land to air. Missiles are a general term. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
4 hours ago, root said:

1. Who cares about third party? Just a quick search and i saw where you got your numbers from, you can do better than that. All pictures show they hit target every time. Been proven over and over again in syria, RQ stealh, and now in palestine. 

2. There is a difference between Ballistics, cruise and hypersonic, land to sea, sea to sea, land to air. Missiles are a general term. 

 

Root jaan, how can we ground ourselves in some semblance of fact if we don't consider other opinions on the technical matter of missile accuracy. My point would have been missed if it was thought that I indicated that Iran's missile collection was entirely inaccurate. This is not true. As I said it's more complicated than this and having fair and complete expectations is important for assessing real capabilities and improving vulnerabilities, which I am sure the sardars are more aware of than us. But propaganda is also a powerful weapon and just because we are preparing for the Imam of our time does not mean we will not lie and obfuscate to confound the enemy; this is a central aim of war and we are at war with a great evil. That being said I am not dishonest about my sources and you were able to find them but you probably also saw that I assessed information from Mehr News Agency. We are outsiders and this is what we have to resort to: looking at both sides in the intelligence space. This is besides the point that the CEP of missiles is not hard to measure and is predictable given the technical constraints of the type of a missile's guidance system. And again you are correct. Missiles are a general term. I have said before Iran has a large and varied arsenal. I chose the missiles for comparison in my previous statement because they were MRBMs with the exception to the Iskandar (which I chose because many of you would be familiar with it). Regarding the downing the of the RQ-4 Global Hawk and the RQ-170 Sentinel by Iranians, I am sure this obliges us to imagine how reverse-engineering efforts have vertically expanded a number of critical technologies (stealth, advanced materials, optics, engines, et cetera) that even remain confidential to the open source intelligence community in the West still. Basically we will never know a full, accurate picture about any of Iran's capabilities or their mission outcomes in the region, which for obvious reasons are underreported by Western media and exaggerated by others. Iran has their own reconnaissance satellites so I am sure Hajj Agha knows more than all of us but still we will never fully know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
11 hours ago, Shiajuice said:

Root jaan, how can we ground ourselves in some semblance of fact if we don't consider other opinions on the technical matter of missile accuracy. My point would have been missed if it was thought that I indicated that Iran's missile collection was entirely inaccurate. This is not true. As I said it's more complicated than this and having fair and complete expectations is important for assessing real capabilities and improving vulnerabilities, which I am sure the sardars are more aware of than us. But propaganda is also a powerful weapon and just because we are preparing for the Imam of our time does not mean we will not lie and obfuscate to confound the enemy; this is a central aim of war and we are at war with a great evil. That being said I am not dishonest about my sources and you were able to find them but you probably also saw that I assessed information from Mehr News Agency. We are outsiders and this is what we have to resort to: looking at both sides in the intelligence space. This is besides the point that the CEP of missiles is not hard to measure and is predictable given the technical constraints of the type of a missile's guidance system. And again you are correct. Missiles are a general term. I have said before Iran has a large and varied arsenal. I chose the missiles for comparison in my previous statement because they were MRBMs with the exception to the Iskandar (which I chose because many of you would be familiar with it). Regarding the downing the of the RQ-4 Global Hawk and the RQ-170 Sentinel by Iranians, I am sure this obliges us to imagine how reverse-engineering efforts have vertically expanded a number of critical technologies (stealth, advanced materials, optics, engines, et cetera) that even remain confidential to the open source intelligence community in the West still. Basically we will never know a full, accurate picture about any of Iran's capabilities or their mission outcomes in the region, which for obvious reasons are underreported by Western media and exaggerated by others. Iran has their own reconnaissance satellites so I am sure Hajj Agha knows more than all of us but still we will never fully know.

Bro you write a lot of text, but the substance doesn't cover what you initially claimed. Here is a link to an overall search on mehr news about pin point missiles.

https://www.mehrnews.com/tag/موشکهای+نقطه+زن

please show me where it says the different things you claimed. I can link you CNN and VOA with your claims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
4 minutes ago, root said:

Bro you write a lot of text, but the substance doesn't cover what you initially claimed. Here is a link to an overall search on mehr news about pin point missiles.

https://www.mehrnews.com/tag/موشکهای+نقطه+زن

please show me where it says the different things you claimed. I can link you CNN and VOA with your claims. 

 

 

My initial claim was, in fact, that we have to be ready to accept either of multiple claims regarding missile accuracy for reasons I have already highlighted (technical constraints, propaganda, observable results, and more). We would be doing ourselves a disservice to accept or reject one ultimately over the other without a factual basis. As I mentioned before there are no blanketed statements nor explicit facts that have to be accepted based on their quality and reliability. I will link below to the other sources for your convenience. I did not look at CNN and VOA. I am sure you and I are both in agreement that Western media is filled with lies. But we must also accept that our media does use similar tactics. This is an information war as much as a kinetic war and is in line especially with Iran's strategic patience.

 

Center for Strategic and International Studies:

 

1. (use this to navigate to retrieve information on many missile systems) https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/

2. https://www.csis.org/analysis/irans-nuclear-missile-delivery-capability

 

Mehrhttps://en.mehrnews.com/news/222300/Which-missiles-Iran-used-in-its-retaliatory-attack-on-Israel

 

International Institute for Strategic Studies: 

 

1. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/missile-dialogue-initiative/2024/09/iranian-missile-deliveries-to-russia-escalating-military-cooperation-in-ukraine/

2. https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library---content--migration/files/research-papers/open-source-analysis-of-irans-missile-and-uav-capabilities-and-proliferation.pdf

 

CIA (this is an older declassified document but still an interesting read): https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00096R000100120003-6.pdf

 

I invite you to support your claim with sources, which I would be happy to read as well. This is a discussion after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
7 hours ago, Shiajuice said:

My initial claim was, in fact, that we have to be ready to accept either of multiple claims regarding missile accuracy for reasons I have already highlighted (technical constraints, propaganda, observable results, and more). We would be doing ourselves a disservice to accept or reject one ultimately over the other without a factual basis. As I mentioned before there are no blanketed statements nor explicit facts that have to be accepted based on their quality and reliability. I will link below to the other sources for your convenience. I did not look at CNN and VOA. I am sure you and I are both in agreement that Western media is filled with lies. But we must also accept that our media does use similar tactics. This is an information war as much as a kinetic war and is in line especially with Iran's strategic patience.

 

Center for Strategic and International Studies:

 

1. (use this to navigate to retrieve information on many missile systems) https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/

2. https://www.csis.org/analysis/irans-nuclear-missile-delivery-capability

 

Mehrhttps://en.mehrnews.com/news/222300/Which-missiles-Iran-used-in-its-retaliatory-attack-on-Israel

 

International Institute for Strategic Studies: 

 

1. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/missile-dialogue-initiative/2024/09/iranian-missile-deliveries-to-russia-escalating-military-cooperation-in-ukraine/

2. https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library---content--migration/files/research-papers/open-source-analysis-of-irans-missile-and-uav-capabilities-and-proliferation.pdf

 

CIA (this is an older declassified document but still an interesting read): https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00096R000100120003-6.pdf

 

I invite you to support your claim with sources, which I would be happy to read as well. This is a discussion after all.

You just proved my point with those url's. Bro, i'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. The pictures are clear, the missiles hit their mark. If they missed, the western media would have been all over it ridiculing it. You don't have to have a phd in aerospace to put two and two together. My source.....if you really want to know is Rahbari requiring it to be accurate else they aren't allowed to use it, and since they use it i'll recon them accurate. You can give him the links and inform him. In 2024, you should know better than to believe anything that comes out of anything west of Asia. 

 

https://fa.alalam.ir/news/3908271/

 

Happy? I mean, this conversation is getting silly now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/14/2024 at 3:36 PM, coldcow said:

A lot of the military comparisons are pointless.  Like it doesn't matter how many tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, or helicopters one or the other has.  Neither country has the ability to invade the other, and those are all short range systems or useful only in seizing territory.  

The only thing that matters is long range missiles, and air craft, and air defense systems.  Iran clearly has a large aresenal of missiles.  Unclear how many are old and unreliable, and how many are newer and more advanced and capable.  Drones can easily be shot down by the Iron Dome.  As can some cruise missiles.  Only the ballistic missiles really can penetrate air defenses of Israel.  But now the US is deploying the THAAD system to help defend Israel.  I think only one battery though.  Probably as a deterrant more than anything.

Iran doesn't even have S400, let alone the latest S500.  I think they only have S300.  Israel has substantially better missile defense systems.  I know some of the children on this board will boast about how it didn't work, but so far there is no evidence that any more than 25-40% of Iran's missiles penetrated last time.  Of course in a larger scale attack, more missiles would be launched, and interception rates would likely decrease.  However it appears as though, whether intentionally or not, the accuracy of the missiles is borderline.

Israel has plenty of cruise missiles, and we've seen them easily penetrate Syrian air space, as well as destroy a radar site in Iran (that was a missile defense system, I think).  Air force wise, Iran's planes are old.  And due to sanctions they can't fly them as often, so their pilots lack training compared to Israeli pilots.  And because Iran's neighbors have sold out to Israel, it wouldn't surprise me if they allow Israel use of their air space for an attack on Iran.  However, this would be extremely high risk, and I doubt they would do it.  A single F35 getting shot down in Iran would mean China would get their hands on it and be able to get into all the western systems and learn how to track and shoot them down.  

Navy wise, I don't think Iran can project Naval power.  It would be very easy for Israel to attack Iranian vessels if they venture too far away.  And Israel just has to sit back.  The US also has very good anti-submarine technology, which would likely make Iranian subs high risk targets as well.

Multiple independent sources and analysts have concluded that around 50 of the ballistic missiles got through the defensive shield (at least 30 hitting on or near the Navatim air base alone). If we do the math, considering that Iran fired 180 missiles, that puts the success rate at about 25%, and the Israeli (backed by the US of course) interception rate at 75%. (let's also give a shot out to King Abdul-Yahood of Jordan, who shot down 1 missile). 

Without a doubt, from a military and strategic perspective, a quarter of the missiles getting through is a clear FAILURE on Israel's part. Israel has some of the most heavily defended air space on earth. When militaries fire barrages of missiles, like Russia does in Ukraine with waves of missiles and drones, they ASSUME that many of the them will be intercepted, it's part of their calculus. In fact, Ukraine has consistently had an interception rate of around 80% throughout the war (using US patriot systems). Russia knows this, and has employed the tactic of sending waves of strikes in order to overwhelm their defenses and deplete Ukraine of critical and expensive interceptors. That roughly 20% of missiles and drones that have consistently made it through have done a LOT of damage to Ukraine's infrastructure over time, and that's exactly the point. Ukraine's infrastructure has been devastated during this war. If Israel is so capable of defending itself, why did the US rush to deploy the THAAD system there?

This is exactly the tactic that Iran could employ in a long war with Israel. With a success rate of 25% and likely tens of thousands of missiles in their inventory, they could do serious damage to Israel. In fact, they have suggested that in the next round of strikes, they will target critical infrastructure. Israel is a small country, and is already economically strained and militarily stretched thin. This is not to say that Israel likewise could not do massive damage to Iran, with advanced jets and refueling capabilities, they clearly have the ability. 

It comes down to a game of numbers. i.e. who can maintain their supply/production of munitions in a long conflict. Israel obviously has a constant flow of munitions from the US. But we should keep in mind that US stockpiles are in some cases lower than you would think, and the US is already stretched from pumping so many weapons into Ukraine, where they have even taken strategic reserves from their own armed forces in some cases and given them to Ukraine because new ones couldn't be produced in time. 

Iran meanwhile has a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles which are relatively cheap to produce and they have built entire underground protected "cities" for storage, production and deployment. Iran is also a huge country, with its military infrastructure spread out. 

So the point I'm trying to make here is that this won't be some cakewalk for Israel, and the damage it could sustain could be potentially massive. 

The big variable is whether Netanyahu succeeds in getting the US pulled in, which he has been trying to do for 30 years. If that happens, we could be looking at a whole other level of conflict, as @Hasani Samnani has pointed out above. 

Let's pray for the protection of our brothers and sisters who are on the front lines. 

Edited by Shaheed786
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...