Iran: "We can destroy US bases after an attack"

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Whirlwind21, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. Galahad Walking tank

    It sounds almost almost to intercept without an interceptor that itself is also guided...

    You do realize that the plasma sheath is the very reason stealthy RVs are not possible ? Plasma is HIGHLY radar reflective. Even if an object is extremely low RCS it can still be tracked by it's plasma trail which will show up on radar.


    [IMG]

    F-35 tracking ballistic missile over 1200 kilometers away on DAS.

    That's a plane not even designed for BMD missions. Aegis cruisers have radar capability that can track and calculate intercepts for satellites in space. When North Korea tests a rocket ships far away in pacific are track it.

    Cluster submunition not bomb. And locally built not imported Russian or Chinese stuff.

    FAEs make the job even easier because if they go boom there is no sharpnel to rain down. Unlike the Scuds and their burning hulks.

    Then how does it evade ABM ?

    Are you incapable of reading ?

    [quote="FAS"The PAC-3 is designed to provide hit-to-kill lethality against high-speed tactical ballistic missiles; maneuvering tactical missiles; low-radar cross-section, long-range targets in operational environments; cruise missiles; and other air-breathing aircraft."[/quote]

    Land based SM-3 is under development. If push comes to shove they can be sent to Afghanistan.

    Not that it's absolutely necessary. PAC-3 and THAAD alone are quite potent on their own.

    It would be a simple modification to make the Pershing's radar do that. You do realize that movting target tracking is far far more easier than stationary ground targets that sit amidst clutter ?
  2. Galahad Walking tank

    Anyway FBH why don't you show something instead of making claim after without source ?

    Show that the Iranians have tested the their supposed anti-ABM ballistic missile against a US equivalent BMD grid. The Iranian military do not even have something that is S-300 level how are they going to test BMD effectiveness ? They don't have stealth aircraft but you claim they have plasma stealth (same nonsense claim Russians were laughed off for before ) ?

    Seriously I can show you theater ballistic missiles and IRBMs getting shot down in tests dating back all the way to 1960s. Why don't you show a ballistic missile test where an "evasive" ballistic missile escaped destruction in it's test against a contemporary BMD ? Russians have both both BMD and maneuverable ballistic missiles, they at least should have performed something. But turns out Iskander and like have a different trajectory to minimize expouser to air defenses. Not magically dodge SAMs while pulling 50 g's and travelling at 2000 m/s at same time.
    AlexanderD likes this.
  3. FBH What is Project Zohar?

    I already did.

    They haven't tested it. On the other hand you've done nothing to show that we've tested our BMD systems against Iranian missiles. We don't exactly know their capacities and the Iranians are unlikely to tell us.

    The only combat use of BMD I'm aware of has been against extremely slow Iraqi missiles in 2003.

    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_396.shtml

    As far as I know no such tests have been conducted. The Russian BMD system is outdated and frankly useless. There's S-400s but I'm unaware if they've tested them on anything like the Shad-3B.

    Here is what we know.

    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_396.shtml

    So, show that any of this is incorrect?

  4. Get ready for the Wikipedia quotes of fury......
  5. Galahad Walking tank

    US BMD systems have been tested against missiles more advanced than anything Iranians have. For example the Minotaur II/III rockets are derived from space launch vehicles, they are much faster than any IRBM in existence. US BMD program was also developed to counter opponents that use countermeasures and decoys.

    A rough, very broad outline of what type of things the US missile defense projects aim to protect against
    http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/targets.pdf

    All this link says is that Shahab-3 is a IRBM and not a tactical ballistic missile like a Scud. Which would be news if IRBMs were hard targets but they are not. Even India's has a BMD program that can intercept IRBMs.

    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/170167.html

    How many countries fired ballistic missiles against US or Russia until now ? Like SSNs combat use of a BMD system is an unlikely occurrence unless fighting a developed nation.

    S-400s 50 year old ancestor shot down an IRBM faster and longer ranged than Shahab-3.

    The Iranians have made a missile built in 2000s as accurate as a late 70s vintage product from US. This is dangerous or even relevant how ?
  6. Galahad Walking tank

    I have no problems with wikipedia as long as he (FBH) cites something. His claims amount to the North Korean Pokpung-ho is best tank in the world because North Korea has released a statement that says so. Apparently in his book Iran is infallible even if they boast about beating systems they do not even posses. They have no stealth but they can make a ballistic missile stealthy, they can make RVs fly like scramjets. If FBH is correct Iranian ballistic missiles are so superior to US Minuteman III ICBMs that they make them look like Katayusha artillery rockets.
  7. FBH What is Project Zohar?

    Which US BMD program? There's lots now.

    That's too broad to be useful. You're going to have to give me a bit more than that.

    That link doesn't work.

    Also no it doesn't.

    That's kind of my point.

    But did it do it in a way that defeats what my source said?

    We don't even know the accuracy or real performance data of Iranian weapons. Most of the stuff we have is speculation. The fact is though that the Iranians at least expect the Shab-3B to beat Israeli arrows. Whether they can beat other systems is up in the air.
  8. Galahad Walking tank


  9. Lol yeah
    DarthDakka and Galahad like this.
  10. Galahad Walking tank

    The link in question was from the MDA, they are in charge of monitoring the overall efforts and provide targets for all of them. If I have time I will compile a thorough list of targets that I can find. I have read about a fascinating variety of older rockets and missiles of yesteryears being used as targets.

    Yeah I said it was a broad outline. But it underscores what I said - US BMD projects are required to handle real world threats that may employ countermeasures also. Iran is not even at the countermeasure stage where they can deploy decoy baloons

    Alright here is a working one.

    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/DRDO readies shield against Chinese ICBMs/1/31874.html

    Technically India already has effective IRBM defense, the new program aims at ICBMs with added even better defense against smaller missiles.

    Here is a very nice study on Indias current ABM capability by a prominent Pakistani think tank

    http://www.issi.org.pk/old-site/ss_Detail.php?dataId=399

    Anything bigger than a theater ballistic missile has also never been used in combat. What is your point ?

    let me put it this way. a s-300 can take upto 20G. You are not


    Does your source say the Shahab-3 can pull 40-50 g's while travelling at mach 8 ? Unless it can do that it is not bypassing a old heavy SAM much less modern stuff.

    North Koreans expect to beat combined Korean,US and Japanese militaries. Expectations != reality.
  11. FBH What is Project Zohar?

    I think I'm going to stop arguing technical details now, because as far as I can uncover from google/books/scholar there's actually no accurate technical details of the Shad-3 etc. around so further technical debate is a bit pointless.

    No they clearly don't or they'd have invaded.

    Except I already did post a source and you've basically ignored it.

    The point of the source is not that it dodges incoming interceptors. It's that it changes course between the targeting radar's track and the interceptor launch, thus making the interceptor's job impossible. It's not going to jink out of the way like an aircraft.

    Furthermore you know exactly what I my source says. I've linked it and quoted it like three freaking times.

    As for "LOL This is all Iranian propaganda".

    Look at actual Iranian behavior for a moment. They have the internet too, and they can speak English like we can. If their ballistic missiles didn't have some tricks to try to get past the absolutely massive investment we're putting into BMD, why would they keep building them? Why not switch over to something less interceptable like long range cruise missiles? It's not like they don't have a proven capacity to build cruise missiles, they make their own ASMs.

    What you're basically doing is not denying that the Pokupung-ho is the best tank in the world, but denying that it's an upgrade over what North Korea had before. You can also see by their other behavior that they don't really believe it. For instance the fact they're equipping their infantry with lots of anti-tank and telling them, in effect to get on with it without armoured support.

    Best case scenario, sure, the Iranians have nothing that can get past THAADs, patriots and whatever. However that's only in the best case.
  12. Doc_Holliday In Vino Veritas

    Aside from the fact that the Shahab-3 doesn't have a maneuvering warhead (it's just Iranian disinformation). Read up on them. The proof is in numerous writings and firing exercises they've had. The THAAD kill vehicle has a DAVS system that allows it to home in on a maneuvering target before intercept.

    Here's the deployment to the UAE and the plan for a regional IADS. The one in Israel has been reported on for quite some time, as have reports of batteries being rushed to Al Udeid.

    Got a source on that? If it was a forward headquarters element I wouldn't be surprised if they were operating beyond Patriot coverage.

    New systems are operational now that weren't in 2003. There is no way to "show" that outside of an actual war going down.

    The US still intercepted Scuds all the same, and eventually dismantled Iraq's ability to launch them. The same would happen with Iran and it's Shahab-3s, which are essentially knockoffs of the North Korean Nodong MRBM, which itself is an oversized knockoff of the Scud-C. :rolleyes:

    A knockoff of a knockoff.

    Uh....no it's actually the exact truth. o_O

    The Shahab-3 is an Iranian produced version of the Nodong series. The Nodong series is literally an oversized North Korean modification of the Scud-C. You need to know your missiles better.

    That's not at dispute. The US has the means to defend from such attacks.

    I'll believe it when I see it. Till then it's just Iranian disinformation.

    Iran is not Russia or China in terms of missile and ballistics technology.

    Wha?

    Explain how they would achieve this please.

    Forgive me if I don't believe a single thing the Iranians say.

    IIRC Iran's cluster munitions are all imported, not locally produced.

    Go to Youtube and look at the live fire exercises.

    *sighs*

    Technically yes, but the Iranians would have to modify it to do so.

    No one plays their cards well when they end up getting double tapped by a Navy SEAL in the middle of the night. To say the least of most of his associates and colleagues getting Hellfire spammed courtesy of US Drones.

    Considering all the shit they've pulled since then they can go cry a river. Mossadegh was a closet communist anyway who was rather undemocratic to begin with.

    It was choosing between a Communist and Nazi.....during the Cold War. Who do you think the US was going to choose?

    Not all that hard really.

    I'll be ignoring it too....for future reference. We're talking about the same country that tried to photoshop(!) a missile exercise for crying out loud.

    What does that have to do with Iran?

    What's even more amazing is how most liberal histories of Iran-US relations always start in 1953 and don't go back even further. Context is everything.

    I'm starting to see that.

    The fact he's taking everything the Iranians claim at face value is shocking to say the least.

    Riiight.

    Do you understand the ballistic part in ballistic missile? Galahad was on point when he talked about the notion of a maneuvering missile like that being an oxymoron.

    Doesn't have to be in Afghanistan to be able to perform intercepts.

    Then you're buying into Iranian disinformation hook, line, and sinker without proper cross-referencing.

    Ever heard of "trust, but verify"? You have to separate the Iranian BS wankery from what is reality. That doesn't mean blindly taking everything they claim to be true just for the sake of a worst case scenario that has a 1:1000 chance of happening.

    Source?

    Most of your sources can't be cross-referenced, or just suck outright.

    How do you know what the US may, or may not, know about Iranian capabilities?

    So does that mean your whole assertion about the Shahab-3 having a maneuvering capability was just a load of bollocks then?

    Because they have a strategy/doctrine that requires the use of such missiles in any potential conflict with the US. With the hope that they'll actually perform to expectations. Doesn't mean that they actually will.

    It's not the best case. It's the most realistic one. You need to come out of the fantasy land you're living in where the Iranians somehow have modern systems capable of giving the US anything more than a broken nose in a shooting war.

    The fact is that they won't win a conventional war with the United States. Period.

    Doing anything you can to suggest or allude to the notion that they can is an exercise in futility.
    AlexanderD likes this.
  13. Galahad Walking tank

    It's a IRBM built by a developing country, their greatest aerospace accomplishment is cloning a F-5 Tiger. Unless the Shahab-3 is a whole new category of weapons what more technical details do you need ?

    Iran expects the same so ?

    Don't tell me your whole argument is basically they won't be making ballistic missiles if it did not ignore US BMD technlogy.

    Here is a hint, IEDs can kill tanks, even vehicles used for urban assaults like Merkavas. Does not mean that IEDs are an effective weapon or you can stop a modern day blitzkrieg style attack with them. Likewise tactical ballistic missiles with conventional warheads can pose a threat to US forces. They are however neither a game changer nor a war winner.

    I also reiterate - where is any instance of Iran ever testing their ballistic missiles against anything resembling modern air defense ? They do not even have a late 80s model S-300. Why would you believe their claims of penetrating defenses they can not build or posses and neither do they have sufficient intelligence on.

    You also do realize everything you claim basically puts Iranian rocketry ahead of US ? You really think the Iranians built a IRBM that beats the pants off any American built ballistic missile to date ?
  14. Stratigo The Uber Being

    Exactly. This is what FBH does. He comes into a thread and says that everyone is better then america. Read every political thread he has participated in ever, he has not once that I remember taken the side of the US. It is always, "america sucks at this." Or "Nation X is so much better then America." And sometimes that point is valid., because the US has problems. But he also comes into threads like this and starts arguing how american Missile defense sucks and how Iran will completely crush all american bases. FBH 's entire platform is that America sucks.
    Night_stalker likes this.
  15. TheSandman Solidarity

    "But...but...Communism! And oil! Delicious, delicious oil!"
    Sabertooth likes this.
  16. MJ12 Commando Solidarity

    Wrong. His point in this thread is "American BMD is untested and there is no reason to not believe that Iran thinks it can defeat the unclassified abilities of American missile defense with its own missiles."

    Which is pretty reasonable considering in Gulf War 1 Patriots shot at 0% versus Scuds, in GW2 they did better but still, against the most incompetent military with the shittiest missiles, and nothing else has been combat tested (and there are plenty of ways to rig tests). And the Iranians can browse globalsecurity or FAS just as well as you can. Possibly better.

    Seriously put away the "Amerikkkka Fuck Yeah" boners and think.
  17. Gulf War 1 was 22 years ago, I feel the need to point out. Our capabilities have greatly increased since then.

    MA
  18. But they have not progressed in vacuum. Everybody elses has done the same.
  19. True. But the Iranians were starting from a lot farther back . . . if they have half the capabilities they claim, I would be impressed.

    MA
  20. If they loaded it with chemical or biological warfare they're flirting with getting nuked. I don't think Iran is that insane.
  21. Stratigo The Uber Being

    And so your immediate assumption is that Iranian claims are all perfect and correct and all American claims are dirty lies?

    Because, yeah tests can be manipulated and likely are. But comparing test claims, I vastly trust American claims WAY before I trust iranian claims.At least the US tests post somewhat reliable statistics, and when shit gets really dodgy in testing, it is massively easy for someone to whistle blow on it. If American missile defenses were absolute shit and the military was making up their abilities, there would be a thousand blogs about it and chances are major news sources would start picking up on it. So far, there is no evidence what so ever that statistics claimed by the military are falsified. While Iranian are claiming superior weapon systems then the Russians.



    And FBH clearly knows shit all about what he is talking about and knew nothing at all coming into the thread. He started posting specifically to crow about how shit America is. When confronted he actually started doing some research.
  22. I think the incident in question was a hit against a brigade headquarters of the US 3rd Infantry Division by a FROG-7 or a variant thereof:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rocket_over_ground

    Not a lot of detail, I remember reading about it in the book Thunder Run.

    They were operating quite far forward, as far as I recall they were outwith the range of Patriot.

    Something interesting to note - IIRC although the FROG strike made a mess of the HQ it didn't completely knock it out. And that was a relatively small and soft target. Completely destroying a large US base, with hardened structures, is going to take a lot of conventional hits and they're going to have to be precisely targeted to take out the bunkers and HAS. Spraying big HE warheads and cluster munitions will make a mess of the place and if surprise is obtained in the initial strikes will probably cause a lot of casualties, but actually destroying a base? That's a tricky prospect.
  23. Even so if attacking Iran may result on chemical strikes on US bases suddenly bombing Iran seems like a bad idea.Detterence works.
  24. Saddam promised rivers of blood in '91. It didn't stop anything.

Share This Page