Iranian Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare

[Janbaz]

By Fariborz Haghshenass
December 21, 2006


For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.

Revolutionary Naval Warfare

During the Iran-Iraq War, the armed forces of Iran—particularly the Revolutionary Guards (or Pasdaran)—developed a war-fighting doctrine in accord with the country’s revolutionary ideology. Based on Shiite religious concepts, the doctrine reflects Iran’s Alavi and Ashurai heritage. It draws inspiration from Ali (cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammad), who chose to avoid confrontation when challenged by Arab rulers of his time, and waited for twenty-four years before assuming the caliphate, as well as from the devotion of his son Hussein, who faced a superior enemy and died in battle on the plains of Karbala on the tenth day of Muharram in the year 680 (Ashura).

Revolutionary Shiite values such as stoic endurance and devotion to the cause are granted equal, if not superior, status to the traditional military principles of mission accomplishment and the achievement of a military objective. According to this doctrine, the mere act of fighting, exerting maximum effort, and fulfilling one’s religious (and national) duty to the fullest is an end in itself. The result or outcome is of secondary importance. For adherents, martyrdom is a welcome prospect. A readiness to die, however, is not considered a substitute for lethality and effectiveness. On the contrary, the Iranian concept of Alavi/Ashurai warfare relies not just on spiritual commitment, but also on high-tech weaponry and innovative tactics—a combination employed to great effect on the ground in southern Lebanon by Iran’s protege, the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, in its war with Israel this summer.

The most prominent expression of this doctrine was a series of naval battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988. These took place during the final phases of the Iran-Iraq War, when hopelessly outclassed Iranian forces battled U.S. naval units in the Persian Gulf. Iran incurred heavy losses in the process. The experience taught Iran that large naval vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks, confirmed the efficacy of small boat operations, and spurred interest in missile-armed fast-attack craft. It also allowed Iran to expand the use of swarming tactics that form the foundation of its current approach to asymmetric naval warfare.

Naval Swarming Tactics

Swarming tactics are not new; they have been practiced by land armies for thousands of years. Such tactics require light, mobile forces with substantial striking power, capable of rapidly concentrating to attack an enemy from multiple directions and then rapidly dispersing.

Iranian naval swarming tactics focus on surprising and isolating the enemy’s forces and preventing their reinforcement or resupply, thereby shattering the enemy’s morale and will to fight. Iran has practiced both mass and dispersed swarming tactics. The former employs mass formations of hundreds of lightly armed and agile small boats that set off from different bases, then converge from different directions to attack a target or group of targets. The latter uses a small number of highly agile missile or torpedo attack craft that set off on their own, from geographically dispersed and concealed locations, and then converge to attack a single target or set of targets (such as a tanker convoy). The dispersed swarming tactic is much more difficult to detect and repel because the attacker never operates in mass formations.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Pasdaran navy used mass swarming tactics; as a result, its forces proved vulnerable to attack by U.S. naval and air power. Because of this, it is unlikely that such tactics would be used for anything but diversionary attacks in the future. In today’s Iranian naval forces, mass swarming tactics have largely given way to dispersed swarming.

Dispersed swarming tactics are most successful when attackers can elude detection through concealment and mobility, employ stand-off firepower, and use superior situational awareness (intelligence), enabling them to find and engage the enemy first. This accounts for a number of trends in Iranian naval force development in the past two decades. The first is the acquisition and development of small, fast weapons platforms—particularly lightly armed small boats and missile-armed fast-attack craft; extended- and long-range shore- and sea-based antiship missiles; midget and diesel attack submarines (for intelligence gathering, covert mine laying, naval special warfare, and conventional combat operations); low-signature reconnaissance and combat unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); and the adaptation of the Shahab-3 medium-range surface-to-surface missile armed with a cluster warhead reportedly carrying 1,400 bomblets, for use against enemy naval bases and carrier battle groups.

Iran has also sought to improve its ability to achieve surprise by employing low-observable technologies (such as radar-absorbent paints), strict communications discipline, stringent emissions control measures, passively or autonomously guided weapons systems (such as the Kowsar series of television-guided antiship missiles), and sophisticated command-and-control arrangements. To support its naval swarm tactics, Iran has encouraged decentralized decisionmaking and initiative, as well as autonomy and self-sufficiency among naval combat elements.

Wartime Operations

In wartime, Iranian naval forces would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz and destroy enemy forces bottled up in the Persian Gulf; therefore speed and surprise would be key. Iranian naval forces would seek to identify and attack the enemy’s centers of gravity as quickly as possible and inflict maximum losses before contact with subordinate units were lost as a result of enemy counterattacks. Geography is Iran’s ally. Because of the proximity of major shipping routes to the country’s largely mountainous 2,000-kilometer coastline, Iranian naval elements can sortie from their bases and attack enemy ships with little advance warning. Meanwhile, shore-based antiship missiles can engage targets almost anywhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. To achieve the latter capability, and to improve the survivability of its shore-based missile force, Iran has devoted significant efforts to extending the range of locally produced variants of a number of Chinese shore-based antiship missiles such as the HY-2 Silkworm and the C-802 (from 50 to 300 kilometers and from 120 to 170 kilometers, respectively). It has also introduced the use of helicopter-borne long-range antiship missiles.

To ensure that it can achieve surprise in the event of a crisis or war, Iran’s naval forces keep U.S. warships in the region under close visual, acoustic, and radar observation. The Iranian navy commander—Rear Adm. Sajad Kouchaki, one of the architects of the country’s naval doctrine—recently claimed that Iranian submarines continually monitor U.S. naval movements, frequently at close range, and have even passed underneath American aircraft carriers and other warships undetected. Iranian UAVs also frequently shadow U.S. carrier battle groups in the area.

Conclusion

Current Iranian naval deployments are aimed at deterring an American attack and—in the event of hostilities—entrapping and destroying U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, at which time U.S. regional bases would be targeted with rocket and missile strikes as well. Iranian naval forces would conduct simultaneous close-in and stand-off attacks, relying on swarming tactics developed and refined during the Iran-Iraq War and highlighted in recent naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. The performance of Lebanese Hizballah guerrillas, who used similar tactics against much larger and more powerful Israeli ground forces in southern Lebanon last summer, provides some insight into what the U.S. Navy should expect in the event of a confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548)

[burster]

Janbaz,

I read this today also. A good doctrine for Iran. If it comes to war it will be fascinating to see how well the doctrine plays out in practice. Obviously the US has studied Iran's naval doctrine. The question is, what are they preparing to do to overcome Iran's strengths and magnify their weaknesses?

I think one of the most obvious things the US will do is to keep their carriers outside the Persian Gulf and pound from the air Iranian naval bases, missile installations, artillery sites, etc. They might also mine specific areas of the Iranian coastline. This can be done using B-52s. I would also think there will be heavy use of helicopters to try and protect tanker convoys through the straits of Hormuz after it is swept for mines.

The key for Iran will be their ability to communicate well enough with their forces to coordinate dispersed swarming attacks. Given the capabilities of US electronic warfare, that may turn out to be very difficult.

[PJPM]

Janbaz,

I read this today also. A good doctrine for Iran. If it comes to war it will be fascinating to see how well the doctrine plays out in practice. Obviously the US has studied Iran's naval doctrine. The question is, what are they preparing to do to overcome Iran's strengths and magnify their weaknesses?

I think one of the most obvious things the US will do is to keep their carriers outside the Persian Gulf and pound from the air Iranian naval bases, missile installations, artillery sites, etc. They might also mine specific areas of the Iranian coastline. This can be done using B-52s. I would also think there will be heavy use of helicopters to try and protect tanker convoys through the straits of Hormuz after it is swept for mines.

The key for Iran will be their ability to communicate well enough with their forces to coordinate dispersed swarming attacks. Given the capabilities of US electronic warfare, that may turn out to be very difficult.


i don't know whats the range of american planes, well i mean fighter planes cause B 52 probably can fly for a LONG TIME, but their fighter planes like F-16 if they are too far away from persian gulf than they can't hit iran with air which can HELP ALOT to iran. meaning iran can build planes and send them to the see to help their navy and on land attack Iraq and Afghanistan Since americans biggest power is by Air, and if they can't attack by Air than they will not have much of chance.

[shaan_haider]

Its a good article that shows Iran's preparedness.

No doubt in case of war Iran will have the upper hand in persian gulf and it will be suicidal for the americans and their allies to keep their gaint naval ships and aircraft carriers in the persian gulf.

During the first hours or days of the war the US will not attempt to secure the waters thru its navy rather it will provocate iran to advance more and more to strike them and it will rely on its airforce to knock down the iranian naval units. This war will not be limited to few days. It will prolong upto several months. Although It is now difficult for the US and their allies to sustain a naval war with Iran.

Iran navy which has acquired the striking capability of atleast 200 kms can easily secure the persian gulf. Thus It will be difficult for irans enemies to get close to iranian waters.

1. Iran must acquire submarines that can operate in Arabian sea and Indian ocean.
2. It should fill the waters of arabian sea and indian ocean thru its advance rocket mines.

All US airbases that falls within the range of 2K kms too will become preferred targets of the iranian missiles. This will significantly effect and disrupt the performance of the US airforce.

Iran is militarily ready to confront the US threat.

.

[lulldapull]

Does anyone have proof that Iran has the Sunburn?

[SS_Charlemagne]

Does anyone have proof that Iran has the Sunburn?

What kind of proof? what do you want, that someone of the forum goes to an iranian arsenal and take a Sunburn for to show it to you??

[Sith]

Janbaz,

I think one of the most obvious things the US will do is to keep their carriers outside the Persian Gulf and pound from the air Iranian naval bases, missile installations, artillery sites, etc. They might also mine specific areas of the Iranian coastline. This can be done using B-52s. I would also think there will be heavy use of helicopters to try and protect tanker convoys through the straits of Hormuz after it is swept for mines.



Those Strike planes have to refuel once before continuing on to Iran. The Tankers would be immediate targets for Iranian F-14s. They will engage far beyond the Tankers escorts' range with AIM-54s and that will scrub the attack mission. B-52s will be hunted down by Iranian Interceptors of all types.

[burster]

Sith,

Why do you think the strike planes have to refuel before reaching attack range, given the distance at which they can fire their missiles? The Slam-er missile for example, (see the urls below) has a range of at least 150 miles. Since the super hornets in the US navy inventory have a combat radius of at least 490 miles, the carriers could easily be crusing 100 miles off the coast of Oman at, say, 19 49 22 N , 60 11 24 E and still be within range of attack for Bandar Abbas Navy field.

Now granted, Iran has f-14s, and supposedly has aim-54 missiles still in its inventory. But it got those from the United States and have no advanced ECCM that can cope with the advanced ECM of US forces. It really stretches the imagination to think that Iran has been able to build aim-54 missiles that can't be spoofed by US countermeasures.

B-52s are not the only way that mines can be delivered. They can also be delivered by submarine, for example, the quickstrike Mk 67 SLMM (see fourth url below).

Now take a look at Bandar Abbas naval base at 27 8 38 N, 56 12 14 E. Notice that you have two choke points to the inner port regions, one that is roughly 400 meters across and the inner that is 230 meters across. Quick strike mines could bottle up a lot of ships without a lot of difficulty.

But the likeliest first strike on Bandar Abbas navy field, the naval base, the 9th tactical air base at Bandar Abbas international airport, and the 10th tactical air base at Chah Bahar are from tactical tomahawk cruise missiles launched out in the Arabian gulf from SSGN submarines. Since their range is at least 1,000 miles, it is unlikely that Iran will have much warning on the strikes, especially if they come in from unlikely directions and are aided by ECM measures from US aircraft.


http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/f18_growler.htm#program

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slam-er.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/slam/index.htm

http://www.ncsc.navy.mil/Our_Mission/Mission_Areas/Mining_Focus_Sheet.htm



Those Strike planes have to refuel once before continuing on to Iran. The Tankers would be immediate targets for Iranian F-14s. They will engage far beyond the Tankers escorts' range with AIM-54s and that will scrub the attack mission. B-52s will be hunted down by Iranian Interceptors of all types.

[lulldapull]

What kind of proof? what do you want, that someone of the forum goes to an iranian arsenal and take a Sunburn for to show it to you??

No need to get defensive. I just asked if someone has seen any news reports on Sunburn delivery (overt/ covert).......I know Iran has the KH-55's. Something along those lines.

[lulldapull]

Sith,

Why do you think the strike planes have to refuel before reaching attack range, given the distance at which they can fire their missiles? The Slam-er missile for example, (see the urls below) has a range of at least 150 miles. Since the super hornets in the US navy inventory have a combat radius of at least 490 miles, the carriers could easily be crusing 100 miles off the coast of Oman at, say, 19 49 22 N , 60 11 24 E and still be within range of attack for Bandar Abbas Navy field.

Now granted, Iran has f-14s, and supposedly has aim-54 missiles still in its inventory. But it got those from the United States and have no advanced ECCM that can cope with the advanced ECM of US forces. It really stretches the imagination to think that Iran has been able to build aim-54 missiles that can't be spoofed by US countermeasures.

B-52s are not the only way that mines can be delivered. They can also be delivered by submarine, for example, the quickstrike Mk 67 SLMM (see fourth url below).

Now take a look at Bandar Abbas naval base at 27 8 38 N, 56 12 14 E. Notice that you have two choke points to the inner port regions, one that is roughly 400 meters across and the inner that is 230 meters across. Quick strike mines could bottle up a lot of ships without a lot of difficulty.

But the likeliest first strike on Bandar Abbas navy field, the naval base, the 9th tactical air base at Bandar Abbas international airport, and the 10th tactical air base at Chah Bahar are from tactical tomahawk cruise missiles launched out in the Arabian gulf from SSGN submarines. Since their range is at least 1,000 miles, it is unlikely that Iran will have much warning on the strikes, especially if they come in from unlikely directions and are aided by ECM measures from US aircraft.


http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/f18_growler.htm#program

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slam-er.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/slam/index.htm

http://www.ncsc.navy.mil/Our_Mission/Mission_Areas/Mining_Focus_Sheet.htm

Burster. The Tomahawk is vulnerable to AAA fire and a significant number have been shot down before reaching their targets in both Iraq and Serbia. It is increasingly becoming vulnerable to well manned and alert AAA/ Manpad defences. In Serbian theatre the Serb defences have claimed as high as 30%-40% of Tomahawks launched towards their targets in Serbia as shot down!:)

Iraqi airdefences have also accounted for significant numbers, and have shown footage of them getting shot down by ZPU-23's/ 37's.

Air strikes are a different matter altogether.

[burster]

Lulldapull,

Claims are one thing. Reality is another. Still, it is true that they are vulnerable to AAA. But even the pro-serbian website below puts the shoot-down rate at only 10 percent. Given the inexperience of Iranian gunners and the coordinated nature of any assault (AAA in the path of tomahawks may well be struck by JSOW weapons in advance), I doubt their shootdown rate will be higher than 5 percent in the initial attack. Attack redundancy will more than compensate.


http://www.warinfo.org.yu/natodown.html

As of 04-12-99 Yugoslav government officially claims to have shot down 119 Tomahawk cruise missiles (this includes the missiles were not completely destroyed but damaged and sent off course.) Several days ago Russian Minister of Defense said that the number of destroyed Tomahawks was 60. Even though 119 damaged or destroyed missiles may seem like a lot, it's really under 10% of all the cruise missiles launched by NATO (the expected loss rate of cruise missiles of this type is around 7% and the nominal overall effectiveness rate is 85%). Most of Tomahawks were downed by AAA fire.

Burster. The Tomahawk is vulnerable to AAA fire and a significant number have been shot down before reaching their targets in both Iraq and Serbia. It is increasingly becoming vulnerable to well manned and alert AAA/ Manpad defences. In Serbian theatre the Serb defences have claimed as high as 30%-40% of Tomahawks launched towards their targets in Serbia as shot down!:)

Iraqi airdefences have also accounted for significant numbers, and have shown footage of them getting shot down by ZPU-23's/ 37's.

Air strikes are a different matter altogether.

[Sith]

Sith,

Why do you think the strike planes have to refuel before reaching attack range, given the distance at which they can fire their missiles? The Slam-er missile for example, (see the urls below) has a range of at least 150 miles. Since the super hornets in the US navy inventory have a combat radius of at least 490 miles, the carriers could easily be crusing 100 miles off the coast of Oman at, say, 19 49 22 N , 60 11 24 E and still be within range of attack for Bandar Abbas Navy field.

Now granted, Iran has f-14s, and supposedly has aim-54 missiles still in its inventory. But it got those from the United States and have no advanced ECCM that can cope with the advanced ECM of US forces. It really stretches the imagination to think that Iran has been able to build aim-54 missiles that can't be spoofed by US countermeasures.

B-52s are not the only way that mines can be delivered. They can also be delivered by submarine, for example, the quickstrike Mk 67 SLMM (see fourth url below).

Now take a look at Bandar Abbas naval base at 27 8 38 N, 56 12 14 E. Notice that you have two choke points to the inner port regions, one that is roughly 400 meters across and the inner that is 230 meters across. Quick strike mines could bottle up a lot of ships without a lot of difficulty.

But the likeliest first strike on Bandar Abbas navy field, the naval base, the 9th tactical air base at Bandar Abbas international airport, and the 10th tactical air base at Chah Bahar are from tactical tomahawk cruise missiles launched out in the Arabian gulf from SSGN submarines. Since their range is at least 1,000 miles, it is unlikely that Iran will have much warning on the strikes, especially if they come in from unlikely directions and are aided by ECM measures from US aircraft.


http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/f18_growler.htm#program

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slam-er.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/slam/index.htm

http://www.ncsc.navy.mil/Our_Mission/Mission_Areas/Mining_Focus_Sheet.htm

:rolleyes1:

Your atrocious knowledge knows no bounds. lulldapull, handled the Cruise missiles, and Iran has far better detection equipment and defenses, not to mention ECM is a dead giveaway...

Lets start with the AIM-54. It is now a completely Iranian system since the USN destroyed its stocks in 2004. Iran has spent much money on maintaining and updating the AIM-54 to the point it has surpassed the original specifications. It is more than capable of punching through jamming. It is utterly naive to think the AIM-54s Iran uses are the same as the ones it had. Something the USN has never considered.

Now to the F/A-18 Super Hornet. I have posted several times before an article that shows its serious shortcommings. The US Carriers must remain well out of Silkworm and Sunburn range, so they will be some 300 kilometers at least away. Thats too far for Super Hornet to fly with weapons and manuever. So it needs to refuel some point before continuing forward. That means some Hornets have to carry fuel or a Tanker must do so, and that is where Iranian AIM-54s come in and blow the tankers away. At that point, the Hornets are out of fuel and as good as shot down.

As for B-52s delivering mines, bear in mind that it is vulnerable to regular Iranian defenses. Even if successfull, Iran will simply clear the mines by sending martyrs with C-4 to blow the mines quickly. Or drag the ships overland. Then this assumes Iran has most of its fleet in Harbor and not dispersed among smaller harbors.

As for subs doing it, well lets just say the Iranians got that covered, by putting nice obstructions in those choke point to subs. If a sub wants in, it must surface. Why do you think subs surface at chokepoints? Only idiots would leave themselves open by not taking precautions at chokepoints and Iranians are no idiots and have those mined to prevent subs from getting in and to detonate others' mineing attempts.

[Sith]

Lulldapull,

Claims are one thing. Reality is another. Still, it is true that they are vulnerable to AAA. But even the pro-serbian website below puts the shoot-down rate at only 10 percent. Given the inexperience of Iranian gunners and the coordinated nature of any assault (AAA in the path of tomahawks may well be struck by JSOW weapons in advance), I doubt their shootdown rate will be higher than 5 percent in the initial attack. Attack redundancy will more than compensate.


http://www.warinfo.org.yu/natodown.html

As of 04-12-99 Yugoslav government officially claims to have shot down 119 Tomahawk cruise missiles (this includes the missiles were not completely destroyed but damaged and sent off course.) Several days ago Russian Minister of Defense said that the number of destroyed Tomahawks was 60. Even though 119 damaged or destroyed missiles may seem like a lot, it's really under 10% of all the cruise missiles launched by NATO (the expected loss rate of cruise missiles of this type is around 7% and the nominal overall effectiveness rate is 85%). Most of Tomahawks were downed by AAA fire.

Except Iranian AAA and Sams are completely mobile along with their radar and more than capable of firing on the move.

Also the USA fired 300 Tomahawks. So the loss ratio is nearly 40 percent on the 119 figure and 20 percent on the 60 figure. Simple math.

Son, lie down before you hurt yourself. :xmas_emot3:

[lulldapull]

Thats right Sith! I also discount the Tomahawk big time now. Its technology as far as detection is getting more and more obsolete. During the day you can see its bulky mass slogging through at 50 feet at only 300-400knts. Those Iraqi gunners sitting on buildings in Baghdad shot a significant number down with ZPU's, on their way in. They also shot their own buildings in the cross fire....:biggrin1: ...but thats a different thing. The point here being that the Tomahawk is vulnerable. Its flight path is static...and the AAA Gunners had no trouble with burst firing with a minor lead for good deflection shots. Even if they damaged them....the Tomahawks would go astray. Serbs had even better luck. Small arms fire was even more effective. At night the Serbian units used night vision equipment and FLIR batteries were spread out throughout the Belgrade area along with MOU's (Mobile Observer Units) and detection/ engagement was not difficult. But some did get through...No doubt. The Sa-3 'Angarra' and the good old Fan-song (Sa-2) S/T units had no trouble painting them on their way in. Significant numbers were downed over Serbia with the Sa-18's, Igla and Strella.

It is these massed airstrikes that are a worry, not the Tomahawk.

P.S. If the U.S. launches any attack, Iran will respond with a massive barrage firing of hundreds of of its SSM's towards all U.S. bases in the Gulf. And Burster......Most will get through and hit their targets (As they are not as slow as the Tomahawks). Even the C-801/802's cruise in at 600knts. More likely it will be these modified Frog-7's and ScudB/C's and Shahab's coming in at Mach-8. See you gotto remember thats why there has been no attack on Iran yet. Iran's SSM inventory is in the thousands now (and growing daily). Just the Scud B/C numbers are more than 1000, with around 2000+ modified Frog-7's, hundreds of N-2's (Noor) and C-801's/802's are locally produced. You guys will have your hands full dealing with thousands of incoming SSM's.:wink2:

Also if hostilities do break out, then Iran will play its game in Iraq too (which would get very ugly from the U.S. military perspective). So you see Burster, thats why its been all quiet for the last 3 years now. If Iran is attacked, then it will only hasten the U.S. military's departure from Iraq. The insurgency will be magnified many times in its lethality and cost. Moqtada's boys and Badr brigade will interdict U.S. supply lines entering from Kuwait (IRGC led units, RPG-29's, Strella's, Kornets turnin up everywhere?). In all honesty right now, the U.S. is still in iraq....courtesy of Iran. Bush understands that, thats why so far its just hollow threats and attempts at intimidation. They ain't workin man.

[azrael]

Sith,

Why do you think the strike planes have to refuel before reaching attack range, given the distance at which they can fire their missiles? The Slam-er missile for example, (see the urls below) has a range of at least 150 miles. Since the super hornets in the US navy inventory have a combat radius of at least 490 miles, the carriers could easily be crusing 100 miles off the coast of Oman at, say, 19 49 22 N , 60 11 24 E and still be within range of attack for Bandar Abbas Navy field.

Now granted, Iran has f-14s, and supposedly has aim-54 missiles still in its inventory. But it got those from the United States and have no advanced ECCM that can cope with the advanced ECM of US forces. It really stretches the imagination to think that Iran has been able to build aim-54 missiles that can't be spoofed by US countermeasures.

B-52s are not the only way that mines can be delivered. They can also be delivered by submarine, for example, the quickstrike Mk 67 SLMM (see fourth url below).

Now take a look at Bandar Abbas naval base at 27 8 38 N, 56 12 14 E. Notice that you have two choke points to the inner port regions, one that is roughly 400 meters across and the inner that is 230 meters across. Quick strike mines could bottle up a lot of ships without a lot of difficulty.

But the likeliest first strike on Bandar Abbas navy field, the naval base, the 9th tactical air base at Bandar Abbas international airport, and the 10th tactical air base at Chah Bahar are from tactical tomahawk cruise missiles launched out in the Arabian gulf from SSGN submarines. Since their range is at least 1,000 miles, it is unlikely that Iran will have much warning on the strikes, especially if they come in from unlikely directions and are aided by ECM measures from US aircraft.
[/url]

Iran hasn't used aim-54 since ~95' that's when we switched to sejils. Cruise missiles are only useful if the the intended target is incapable of detecting and intercepting them. And i would hate to be the pilot of an f-18 loaded up with fuel and long range missles when a mach 4 sejil comes screaming out of the sky to give a hug.

[razhar]

Iran hasn't used aim-54 since ~95' that's when we switched to sejils. Cruise missiles are only useful if the the intended target is incapable of detecting and intercepting them. And i would hate to be the pilot of an f-18 loaded up with fuel and long range missles when a mach 4 sejil comes screaming out of the sky to give a hug.

"sejils"...what is that?:biggrin1:

[Sajjad]

Given the inexperience of Iranian gunners and...

Why do you say inexperience friend?

[burster]

Hezballah,

I say inexperienced because as far as I am aware, Iran has not fought a real war since 1988, 18 years ago. The vast majority of soldiers with any combat experience have long since left the military, especially the soldiers at lower levels who would be actually handling the weapons. Thus the AAA gunners have no experience attempting to shoot down aircraft or cruise missiles.

Why do you say inexperience friend?

[Sajjad]

Hezballah,

I say inexperienced because as far as I am aware, Iran has not fought a real war since 1988, 18 years ago. The vast majority of soldiers with any combat experience have long since left the military, especially the soldiers at lower levels who would be actually handling the weapons. Thus the AAA gunners have no experience attempting to shoot down aircraft or cruise missiles.

Hm yes, I am understanding you sir. All they can do now is to train as hard as they are able to.

[burster]

Lulldapull,

Well, It's probably good then that you are not an Iranian general in charge of the air defense network. As I noted above, claims are one thing, reality is another. For example, in the quotes below from a source quoting an article in Sea Power magazine, hit rates for Serbian targets was 90 percent, while in Gulf War I hit rates for Iraqi targets was 85 percent. This agrees with the percentage rate in the Serbian quote I posted above, although the numbers are quite different since the US source says only 218 Tlams were fired. I sincerely doubt the US would have spent so much money on TLAM-IV over the past 7 years if they didn't think it would be effective.

As for Iran firing thousands of SSMs, do you have a source for all these SSMs? Something more serious than Sith's "I ordered the photos and counted them myself?"

Also, even if we assume there are a lot of scuds, that is not the same thing as having the launchers to fire them with. So unless there are a lot more launchers than _anyone_ is currently projecting, it is unlikely Iran can saturate most of the pac-3 defended sites in the Persian gulf.
==========================
A true 24-hour a day, all weather weapon, Tomahawk accounted for nearly 50% of the key fixed targets, such as leadership headquarters and electrical power distribution sites, destroyed in Serbia and Kosovo. Tomahawk was also effective against mobile targets -- aircraft, re-locatable SA3 sites, and early warning radars. Eighty five percent of the mobile targets attacked by TLAM were damaged or destroyed; a remarkable testimony to this weapon’s utility and effectiveness.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/1999_hr/99-10-26murphy.htm
====================================
Indeed, even an unclassified briefing of TLAM effectiveness in Kosovo tends to challenge belief in the uninitiated. Of 218 Block III TLAMs launched during the 78-day conflict, including 20 from the Royal Navy attack submarine HMS Splendid, 198 successfully hit targets with, Hoffman stated, "no firm evidence of attrition from ground fire."

Navy launched 288 TLAMs during the 1991 Gulf War (244 missiles struck their intended aimpoints), and has continued to employ Tomahawks in various crisis-conflicts since then, achieving an average ordnance-ontarget rate of approximately 85 percent.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200009/ai_n8912851


Thats right Sith! I also discount the Tomahawk big time now. Its technology as far as detection is getting more and more obsolete. During the day you can see its bulky mass slogging through at 50 feet at only 300-400knts. Those Iraqi gunners sitting on buildings in Baghdad shot a significant number down with ZPU's, on their way in. They also shot their own buildings in the cross fire....:biggrin1: ...but thats a different thing. The point here being that the Tomahawk is vulnerable. Its flight path is static...and the AAA Gunners had no trouble with burst firing with a minor lead for good deflection shots. Even if they damaged them....the Tomahawks would go astray. Serbs had even better luck. Small arms fire was even more effective. At night the Serbian units used night vision equipment and FLIR batteries were spread out throughout the Belgrade area along with MOU's (Mobile Observer Units) and detection/ engagement was not difficult. But some did get through...No doubt. The Sa-3 'Angarra' and the good old Fan-song (Sa-2) S/T units had no trouble painting them on their way in. Significant numbers were downed over Serbia with the Sa-18's, Igla and Strella.

It is these massed airstrikes that are a worry, not the Tomahawk.

P.S. If the U.S. launches any attack, Iran will respond with a massive barrage firing of hundreds of of its SSM's towards all U.S. bases in the Gulf. And Burster......Most will get through and hit their targets (As they are not as slow as the Tomahawks). Even the C-801/802's cruise in at 600knts. More likely it will be these modified Frog-7's and ScudB/C's and Shahab's coming in at Mach-8. See you gotto remember thats why there has been no attack on Iran yet. Iran's SSM inventory is in the thousands now (and growing daily). Just the Scud B/C numbers are more than 1000, with around 2000+ modified Frog-7's, hundreds of N-2's (Noor) and C-801's/802's are locally produced. You guys will have your hands full dealing with thousands of incoming SSM's.:wink2:

Also if hostilities do break out, then Iran will play its game in Iraq too (which would get very ugly from the U.S. military perspective). So you see Burster, thats why its been all quiet for the last 3 years now. If Iran is attacked, then it will only hasten the U.S. military's departure from Iraq. The insurgency will be magnified many times in its lethality and cost. Moqtada's boys and Badr brigade will interdict U.S. supply lines entering from Kuwait (IRGC led units, RPG-29's, Strella's, Kornets turnin up everywhere?). In all honesty right now, the U.S. is still in iraq....courtesy of Iran. Bush understands that, thats why so far its just hollow threats and attempts at intimidation. They ain't workin man.

[burster]

Sith,

The real naivete here is the idea you have that the US Navy is dumb enough not to consider that the Iranians have altered the aim-54. It is also naive to think that if the US goes to war against Iran, that there won't be extensive preparations to deal with any f-14s that actually show up for battle.

As for your assertions about the super hornet, you have posted no sources to contradict the ones that I posted, therefore I think your points about its range are invalid.



:rolleyes1:

Your atrocious knowledge knows no bounds. lulldapull, handled the Cruise missiles, and Iran has far better detection equipment and defenses, not to mention ECM is a dead giveaway...

Lets start with the AIM-54. It is now a completely Iranian system since the USN destroyed its stocks in 2004. Iran has spent much money on maintaining and updating the AIM-54 to the point it has surpassed the original specifications. It is more than capable of punching through jamming. It is utterly naive to think the AIM-54s Iran uses are the same as the ones it had. Something the USN has never considered.

Now to the F/A-18 Super Hornet. I have posted several times before an article that shows its serious shortcommings. The US Carriers must remain well out of Silkworm and Sunburn range, so they will be some 300 kilometers at least away. Thats too far for Super Hornet to fly with weapons and manuever. So it needs to refuel some point before continuing forward. That means some Hornets have to carry fuel or a Tanker must do so, and that is where Iranian AIM-54s come in and blow the tankers away. At that point, the Hornets are out of fuel and as good as shot down.

As for B-52s delivering mines, bear in mind that it is vulnerable to regular Iranian defenses. Even if successfull, Iran will simply clear the mines by sending martyrs with C-4 to blow the mines quickly. Or drag the ships overland. Then this assumes Iran has most of its fleet in Harbor and not dispersed among smaller harbors.

As for subs doing it, well lets just say the Iranians got that covered, by putting nice obstructions in those choke point to subs. If a sub wants in, it must surface. Why do you think subs surface at chokepoints? Only idiots would leave themselves open by not taking precautions at chokepoints and Iranians are no idiots and have those mined to prevent subs from getting in and to detonate others' mineing attempts.

[azrael]

"sejils"...what is that?:biggrin1:
............................

[Bosnian]

This talking about attack on Iran lasts for three years at least. I am very sure for that time Iran did not wait and dispersed its forces, weapons, depots, etc. at many locations. When I read these comments it is like Iran is going to pass Perl Harbor stile of attack where everything will be destroyed in a matter of hours. I do not think this is possible, and that is the main reason why the attack did not start yet. If Iran build hundreds of sophisticated underground bunkers to Hezbollah, imagine what they did in their own country? I know in former Yugoslavia, the main JNA army activity during the peace time was to dig as much as possible forces in different type of underground installations. The UK do the same on Gibraltar. Fire positions can be planned and prepared very cheap during the years. When you see miners going down into mines, how do you know if they are going to exploit coal or to dig command bunkers hundred meters underground. I say this because Iran know it is in pretty bad position and in a case of any war it will stay without friends for long period. Any revenge against the Gulf countries will make them permanent enemies. They will stay without customers for their oil. So the only possibility is to attack Israel and to make unacceptable damage to the Western interests. But, behaving too strong will expose Iran to overwhelming attack. The USA/UK/Israel will use much more power then needed because of fear of Iran’s retaliation. They will try to destroy what ever they seem as danger, and since there is no tensions with Russia and no more possibility for NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict, they can easily revoke as many as necessary cruise missiles from their NATO allies, so they can attack with enormous power. This will be intended to give a lesson to Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea, what can be done by NATO. In this light I see Russian interest to prepare Iran for war as much as possible. I am sure that Russia secretly repaired even upgraded all Iranian eastern aviation, even producing critical spare parts for US airplanes such the F-14. I believe there is a secret line for Iran and Syria weapon supply and that upgrades of many weapon platforms are secretly done. My theory is that if you have one weapon platform, for example MIG-29, then who knows if you have 10 or 50 of them? You simply know that Russia sold you 10 MIG-29, then any other country can secretly sell you MIG-29, and if you do not show them publicly, if you use the same markings for many planes, if you never show a number bigger then known number of MIGs-29, nobody would know how many MIGs you really have. What ever you need can come you by submarine, for example spare parts, and similar. Who will stop Killo Class submarine and identify if it is Iranian or Russian? You can travel to Korea or China and load cruise missiles, even A-bomb.

I just can imagine how Iranians rush to equip.

[burster]

Sith,

Based on what source? Or is this another case of you counting all the AAA and SAMs and determining on your own that they are all mobile?

Below is some info from the CSIS report I've quoted from before. There is also plenty of info on the Iranian air defense network, and many AAA and SAMS are not "completely mobile" as are the tor-m1 systems. See for example pages 13 and 24-25 of the document below.

As for the F-14s in Iranian possession, again, what is your source for the upgrading of aim-54s? Here is what the CSIS report says about them on page 23


"Iran’s F-14s were, however, designed as dual-capable aircraft, and have not
been able to use their Phoenix air-to-air missiles since the early 1980s. Iran has claimed that it is modernizing its F-14s by equipping them with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role, but it is far from clear that this is the case or that such adaptations can have more than limited effectiveness."


On a final note, as I have stated before to another poster, your attempts at denigrating my argument by calling me "son" are simply amusing, given that at 55 years of age I am undoubtedly older than you are. So unless you are at least 70 years old and know something about my mother that I don't, it's inappropriate.

=========================
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/061010_iran_assessment.pdf

There are no authoritative data on how Iran deploys air defenses, but Iran seems to have deployed its new SA-5s to cover its major ports, oil facilities, and Tehran. It seems to have concentrated its Improved Hawks and Soviet and Chinese-made SA-2s around Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Bandar Abbas, Kharg Island, Bushehr, Bandar Khomeini, Ahwaz, Dezful, Kermanshah, Hamadan, and Tabriz. Iran’s air defense forces are too widely spaced to provide more than limited air defense for key bases and facilities, and many lack the missile launcher strength to be fully effective. This is particularly true of Iran’s SA-5 sites, which provide long-range, mediumto- high altitude coverage of key coastal installations. Too few launchers are scattered over too wide an area to prevent relatively rapid suppression.

Iran also lacks the low altitude radar coverage, overall radar net, command and control assets, sensors, resistance to sophisticated jamming and electronic countermeasures, and systems integration capability necessary to create an effective air defense net. Its land-based air defenses
must operate largely in the point defense mode, and Iran lacks the battle management systems and data links are not fast and effective enough to allow it to take maximum advantage of the overlapping coverage of some of its missile systems—a problem further complicated by the problems in trying to net different systems supplied by Britain, China, Russia, and the US. Iran’s
missiles and sensors are most effective at high-to-medium altitudes against aircraft with limited penetrating and jamming capability.



Except Iranian AAA and Sams are completely mobile along with their radar and more than capable of firing on the move.

Also the USA fired 300 Tomahawks. So the loss ratio is nearly 40 percent on the 119 figure and 20 percent on the 60 figure. Simple math.

Son, lie down before you hurt yourself. :xmas_emot3:

[lulldapull]

Burster....This CSIS report is like frigging CNN or worst yet zionist god-damn the 700 club type propaganda issued for illiterate type ppl in the U.S. I am disappointed that you defer to such joker sites to get your info....

Bhuwaaaaaaahahahahaahaahaaaaaaa:biggrin1:

You sure this CSIS skit isn't a ripoff from Pat Robertson the bigoted terrorist 700 club show???:biggrin1: Intended for middle aged jewish men sitting around in country clubs?:biggrin1:

I gotta hand it to you...you cracked me up.:biggrin1:

[JEskandari]

No need to get defensive. I just asked if someone has seen any news reports on Sunburn delivery (overt/ covert).......I know Iran has the KH-55's. Something along those lines.

What iran have is called kowsar which is made in iran and have been tested succesfully in great prophet II war game it is equal to the original sunburn missile

[Sith]

Sith,

The real naivete here is the idea you have that the US Navy is dumb enough not to consider that the Iranians have altered the aim-54. It is also naive to think that if the US goes to war against Iran, that there won't be extensive preparations to deal with any f-14s that actually show up for battle.

As for your assertions about the super hornet, you have posted no sources to contradict the ones that I posted, therefore I think your points about its range are invalid.

Except I have in other threads, which you were in and they were written by people who have seen these planes in use. You are now being dishonest.

Further General Absaid of CentCom went so far to say that he thinks there are only 6 operational F-14s in Iran's Inventory and that they have no AIM-54s despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That was also posted here before.

[Sith]

Sith,

Based on what source? Or is this another case of you counting all the AAA and SAMs and determining on your own that they are all mobile?

Below is some info from the CSIS report I've quoted from before. There is also plenty of info on the Iranian air defense network, and many AAA and SAMS are not "completely mobile" as are the tor-m1 systems. See for example pages 13 and 24-25 of the document below.

As for the F-14s in Iranian possession, again, what is your source for the upgrading of aim-54s? Here is what the CSIS report says about them on page 23


"Iran’s F-14s were, however, designed as dual-capable aircraft, and have not
been able to use their Phoenix air-to-air missiles since the early 1980s. Iran has claimed that it is modernizing its F-14s by equipping them with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role, but it is far from clear that this is the case or that such adaptations can have more than limited effectiveness."


On a final note, as I have stated before to another poster, your attempts at denigrating my argument by calling me "son" are simply amusing, given that at 55 years of age I am undoubtedly older than you are. So unless you are at least 70 years old and know something about my mother that I don't, it's inappropriate.


:roflmao3: This is so funny for being so wrong.

"Pulls out Iranian Kill sheets for F-14As, courtesy of Tom Cooper and Farshad Bishop. Found in pg. 85-88 of Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat."

81 AIM-54As fired throughout the war. 20 missed or only damaged the Target.

Some AIM-54s took out multiple targets that were flying too close together, one incident saw 4 Iraqi MiG-23s get blown up by a single AIM-54. Considering Iran has reversed engineered the AIM-54, they will definitely use them. This too has been posted before, including the upgrades.

As for the SAMs well looking over the videos we have here and from the Iranian defence ministry, we now know that all SAMs and AAA with few exceptions are tracked. If you bothered, to read the...... Screw it, you'll continue to demand evidence over and over again no matter how many times I post it,just like Night.

[burster]

Lulldapull,

First off, CSIS is a very authoritative organization. It was formed as a bi-partisan group to offer guidance to policy makers. So your attempts to denigrate the organization are ludicrous, unless you have some specific complaints. CSIS is also a serious player in terms of its reports and publications. It is often quoted by other news sources, and its analysts are often called before congress to testify.

If it wasn't a reputable organization, it is highly unlikely that past national security advisors and secretaries of state would be involved with it. But they are. Take a look at who is involved with it at

http://www.csis.org/about/trustees/

Sam Nunn is a very respected democratic, conservative ex-senator who was chairman of the defense appropriations committee. Look at the trustees. Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft, Brezinski. And lots of other names I recognize from the highest levels of US political spectrum.

But hey, I'm willing to be convinced. Show me a url for another organization which you think has a better understanding of Iran's military forces.

Burster....This CSIS report is like frigging CNN or worst yet zionist god-damn the 700 club type propaganda issued for illiterate type ppl in the U.S. I am disappointed that you defer to such joker sites to get your info....

Bhuwaaaaaaahahahahaahaahaaaaaaa:biggrin1:

You sure this CSIS skit isn't a ripoff from Pat Robertson the bigoted terrorist 700 club show???:biggrin1: Intended for middle aged jewish men sitting around in country clubs?:biggrin1:

I gotta hand it to you...you cracked me up.:biggrin1:

[burster]

Sith,

Just curious, but did you read Azrael's post? He also confirms that Iranian air force is no longer using aim-54. Instead they are using a missile that looks a lot like a Hawk configured for air-to-air, which actually is supported by the CSIS report.

As for asking for evidence, that is like what you did at the top, where you quote from a book about Iranian f-14s in combat. That is something that can be checked out, unlike your satellite photo counting of missiles.

So instead of pretending to go off in a huff, just quote the source about Iranian AAA. Don't play snippy little dominance games like a junior high school girl.

:roflmao3: This is so funny for being so wrong.

"Pulls out Iranian Kill sheets for F-14As, courtesy of Tom Cooper and Farshad Bishop. Found in pg. 85-88 of Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat."

81 AIM-54As fired throughout the war. 20 missed or only damaged the Target.

Some AIM-54s took out multiple targets that were flying too close together, one incident saw 4 Iraqi MiG-23s get blown up by a single AIM-54. Considering Iran has reversed engineered the AIM-54, they will definitely use them. This too has been posted before, including the upgrades.

As for the SAMs well looking over the videos we have here and from the Iranian defence ministry, we now know that all SAMs and AAA with few exceptions are tracked. If you bothered, to read the...... Screw it, you'll continue to demand evidence over and over again no matter how many times I post it,just like Night.

[lulldapull]

Lulldapull,

First off, CSIS is a very authoritative organization. It was formed as a bi-partisan group to offer guidance to policy makers. So your attempts to denigrate the organization are ludicrous, unless you have some specific complaints. CSIS is also a serious player in terms of its reports and publications. It is often quoted by other news sources, and its analysts are often called before congress to testify.

If it wasn't a reputable organization, it is highly unlikely that past national security advisors and secretaries of state would be involved with it. But they are. Take a look at who is involved with it at

http://www.csis.org/about/trustees/

Sam Nunn is a very respected democratic, conservative ex-senator who was chairman of the defense appropriations committee. Look at the trustees. Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft, Brezinski. And lots of other names I recognize from the highest levels of US political spectrum.

But hey, I'm willing to be convinced. Show me a url for another organization which you think has a better understanding of Iran's military forces.


Burster! :) ...You mean the same kind of intelligence that our buddy Saddam had Star-Trek Generation super high tech mobile Bio-chem labs on wheels, and an ultra advanced nuclear program??? and his links to Al-qaeda?:)

My friend the truth is that CIA manufactures and stage manages a lot of this information to suit the politics of the day. These FAS/ Global Security and CSIS are a bunch of joker organisations run by politically savy and connected ppl to the estabilishment. They have been so wide off the mark on almost anything, that only an organisation like the terrorist fundo (700 Club) or the usual propaganda oulets like CNN/ BBC differ to them for 'Propaganda'.

P.S. Case in point being the IRIAF's almost self sufficiency in maintaing/ overhauling and improvement of its Shah era weaponry. That itself doesn't jive well with these "FAS's and CSIS's"........:)

But.....I'll tell you this also...that someone/ organisation do know what Iran has and how much of it. That info will not be released for public dissemination as its classified.

[azrael]

Look at the trustees.Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft, Brezinski. And lots of other names I recognize from the highest levels of US political spectrum.


henry kissinger? isn't he the fellow who ordered the assasination of the democratically elected president of chile, mr. allende, as well as the army chief of staff who refused to go along with pinochet's coup d'etat, just so the u.s. could get copper for a few us dollars less a ton.

hmm , interesting who's at "the highest levels of US political spectrum" , i heard kissinger can't travel to certain countries for fear of being extradited to chile to stand trial for crimes against humanity; death camps, systematic kidnapping of the children of opposition leaders, interogations by graduates of the schools of the americas( a now defunct military academy where the u.s. would teach effective torture techniques to latin american soldiers). I'm sure a fellow like that would never missinterpret information for ulterior reasons.

[burster]

Azrael,

If Kissinger were in power, I am sure he would be more than willing to misinterpret information for political reasons. But the point I am making about CSIS is that it is a serious organization with decent analysts and a record for bipartisan reports. Could these analysts be wrong? Sure, but in terms of what is available from unclassified sources, they are among the best, with the least political axe to grind. You can certainly disagree with their report, but if you do, then post your own references that refute their info.

henry kissinger? isn't he the fellow who ordered the assasination of the democratically elected president of chile, mr. allende, as well as the army chief of staff who refused to go along with pinochet's coup d'etat, just so the u.s. could get copper for a few us dollars less a ton.

hmm , interesting who's at "the highest levels of US political spectrum" , i heard kissinger can't travel to certain countries for fear of being extradited to chile to stand trial for crimes against humanity; death camps, systematic kidnapping of the children of opposition leaders, interogations by graduates of the schools of the americas( a now defunct military academy where the u.s. would teach effective torture techniques to latin american soldiers). I'm sure a fellow like that would never missinterpret information for ulterior reasons.

[burster]

Lulldapull,

And your proof of this stage managing is...what? Oh, that's right, you just _think_ it happens. Kind of like all the people in the US who say that Iran is building nuclear weapons. No proof, but by golly, it must be happening, right?

I agree that you are probably going to get a better picture of Iran's military with classified sources. But since those are denied us (or, at least, we can't verify them in an open medium like a a public forum) we have to do the best we can with open sources like CSIS.

Once again, Lulldapull, what open source on Iran's military do you think does a better job than CSIS?

Burster! :) ...You mean the same kind of intelligence that our buddy Saddam had Star-Trek Generation super high tech mobile Bio-chem labs on wheels, and an ultra advanced nuclear program??? and his links to Al-qaeda?:)

My friend the truth is that CIA manufactures and stage manages a lot of this information to suit the politics of the day. These FAS/ Global Security and CSIS are a bunch of joker organisations run by politically savy and connected ppl to the estabilishment. They have been so wide off the mark on almost anything, that only an organisation like the terrorist fundo (700 Club) or the usual propaganda oulets like CNN/ BBC differ to them for 'Propaganda'.

P.S. Case in point being the IRIAF's almost self sufficiency in maintaing/ overhauling and improvement of its Shah era weaponry. That itself doesn't jive well with these "FAS's and CSIS's"........:)

But.....I'll tell you this also...that someone/ organisation do know what Iran has and how much of it. That info will not be released for public dissemination as its classified.

[jawwal]

Sith,

Just curious, but did you read Azrael's post? He also confirms that Iranian air force is no longer using aim-54. Instead they are using a missile that looks a lot like a Hawk configured for air-to-air, which actually is supported by the CSIS report.

As for asking for evidence, that is like what you did at the top, where you quote from a book about Iranian f-14s in combat. That is something that can be checked out, unlike your satellite photo counting of missiles.

So instead of pretending to go off in a huff, just quote the source about Iranian AAA. Don't play snippy little dominance games like a junior high school girl.

He did not say they not using the aim-54, iran is mass producing them with upgrade versions, he just stated that they have the sijil missile too, based on the hawk missile but with improved guidance system and many other upgrades.

[Sith]

Lulldapull,

And your proof of this stage managing is...what? Oh, that's right, you just _think_ it happens. Kind of like all the people in the US who say that Iran is building nuclear weapons. No proof, but by golly, it must be happening, right?

I agree that you are probably going to get a better picture of Iran's military with classified sources. But since those are denied us (or, at least, we can't verify them in an open medium like a a public forum) we have to do the best we can with open sources like CSIS.

Once again, Lulldapull, what open source on Iran's military do you think does a better job than CSIS?

Burster, do you even think before you post, or even read past threads? As for open sources, ACIG.org. This site keeps track of the most obscure wars and Dogfights which never make the News.

Combat Aircraft published in the UK.

Buy satelite pictures. Just ask for an Airbase or region from any number of providers.

File a FOIA.

[azrael]

I just finished reading csis's The Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric War: Iran (http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3392) and it strikes me that it's authour, Anthony H. Cordesman, is senile. I've never read a more unprofessional report in my life. He doesn't address anything, he gives no motivations for descisions, he doesn't try to isolate descision streams, he merely regurgitates foreign purchases of equipment then hammers these into a nato style analogue force , and as if he were giving an assesment of an omrikiyee divison , he pronounces his completely irrelavent conclusions.

He doesn't address what to my mind would be crucial elements of an opposing force, maybe it is cultural perspectives? i'm not sure. But if this is the best that the u.s. think tanks can come up with it makes the strategic mistake of south leb'nan more understandable. I've always appreciated how compentent iranian information management was, but until i read cordesman's article , i never realized how unnneccary it was given the level of incompetence of our enemies with respect to intelligence gathering and analysis.


Anthony H. Cordesman

[burster]

Sith,

acig.org. Seems like not only a pretty specialized website (specific air combat fights and fighters in history) but it also looks like the site is dying. The Arabian Peninsula/Persian Gulf database had info added only between Sept. 9, 2003 and December 18, 2003. Given that the guy who runs the site is also the publisher of books posted on the site, this seems like a self-promotion website more than anything else. What about a general website on military info so we can see information about Iranian military numbers? What site do you go to for that?

Then you get back to the satellite picture thing. Now I asked this before, and you didn't seem to get the message. What service did _you_ use, Sith, and what coordinates did you order to come up with your amazing count of 1,000 shahab missiles in Iran? I suppose you can keep handwaving it forever, but I really would like to know.

As for filing an FOIA, what did you file an FOIA on? And when?

As for reading past threads, yeah, I sometimes dig through old threads, but it does seem a bit necorphilic. There are some nasty things in those old threads.
And that is why I repost urls that I have already posted. I know there are lots of people who don't want to have to dig through loads of garbage just for a url.

:-)



Burster, do you even think before you post, or even read past threads? As for open sources, ACIG.org. This site keeps track of the most obscure wars and Dogfights which never make the News.

Combat Aircraft published in the UK.

Buy satelite pictures. Just ask for an Airbase or region from any number of providers.

File a FOIA.

[burster]

Jawwal,

Well the exact quote from the post is:

"Iran hasn't used aim-54 since ~95' that's when we switched to sejils."

Seems pretty clear to me that Azrael is saying that Iran no longer uses aim-54, but sejils instead.

He did not say they not using the aim-54, iran is mass producing them with upgrade versions, he just stated that they have the sijil missile too, based on the hawk missile but with improved guidance system and many other upgrades.

[Snauhi]

Burster... He used Google Earth for it... What else.. And every truck he saw was a Shahab-3 missile... He will not responde to your post...

[ThePuss]

henry kissinger? isn't he the fellow who ordered the assasination of the democratically elected president of chile, mr. allende, as well as the army chief of staff who refused to go along with pinochet's coup d'etat, just so the u.s. could get copper for a few us dollars less a ton.
This I find really interesting as no doubt if someone happens to lose their life due to Iran promoting their interest then that will be deemed acceptable? This is world politics where innocent people will lose their lives as politicians manoeuvre all over the globe and do not give jack about the ordinary person. Call me cynical but I think the world would be a better place if all politicians were put up against a wall and shot.

[Xerxes]

Well, US claims to be champion of democracy and the leader of the free world. As an older brother, you expect it to withhold with its ideals. Same goes for the USSR during cold war, i was a kid back then, but regardless USSR had to withhold to its ideals. However, it utterly failed that and lost all support from the third world nations, when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan. US failed with the current Iraq War in the current generation.

[azrael]

This I find really interesting as no doubt if someone happens to lose their life due to Iran promoting their interest then that will be deemed acceptable? This is world politics where innocent people will lose their lives as politicians manoeuvre all over the globe and do not give jack about the ordinary person. Call me cynical but I think the world would be a better place if all politicians were put up against a wall and shot.

If an iranian strategist/policy maker were to put forward his analysis of anything, it would be reasonable, if not accurate, to assume that the analysis may be flavoured in such a manner as to advance iranian national security interests or his/her faction's perception of those interests. Yet, when a u.s./e.u. policy maker puts forward an analysis , automatically the world must internalize it without question as if were in the handwritting of a prophet of god. This expectation on the part of 'civilizied' people for us 'uncivilizied heathens' to accept what you say as being inherently truthful strains my creduelty in the extreme.

Would you allow , in the abstract for no other reason than a cheaky exchange of humour between forum members, that with respect to questions regarding the military capabilites of nation-states, perhaps u.s./e.u. sources may fudge facts every now and again to achieve their goals? May there possibly be a group within the u.s. hegemony who are intentionally trying to paint a picture of a weak iran in the minds of the people and policy makers of the hegemony , in order to reduce the psychological barriers of conflict? If the masses were to believe that a war with iran would be a bloody and costly pyrrich affair, would they be so eager to cry havoc and cast loose the die, and vice versa if a war with iran could be sold as being painless in treasure and blood , wouldn't this make such a conflict seem more palatable? Of course i'm not suggesting that such a cabal of jewish and evangical christians exists and is doing their best to engineer such a conflict regardless of the costs to safeguard the zionist state. But who is to say in these most interesting of days what is real and what is shadow? Afterall it's not as if false premises have led the u.s. hegemony to wage war before :)

[Tarack2006]

I would invest in stealth boats cheapest strealth technology and great threat to aircraft carriers
sweeden has a stealth warship its called Visby:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/visby-DK_011206_0065.jpg

[ThePuss]

If an iranian strategist/policy maker were to put forward his analysis of anything, it would be reasonable, if not accurate, to assume that the analysis may be flavoured in such a manner as to advance iranian national security interests or his/her faction's perception of those interests. Yet, when a u.s./e.u. policy maker puts forward an analysis , automatically the world must internalize it without question as if were in the handwritting of a prophet of god. This expectation on the part of 'civilizied' people for us 'uncivilizied heathens' to accept what you say as being inherently truthful strains my creduelty in the extreme.

Would you allow , in the abstract for no other reason than a cheaky exchange of humour between forum members, that with respect to questions regarding the military capabilites of nation-states, perhaps u.s./e.u. sources may fudge facts every now and again to achieve their goals? May there possibly be a group within the u.s. hegemony who are intentionally trying to paint a picture of a weak iran in the minds of the people and policy makers of the hegemony , in order to reduce the psychological barriers of conflict? If the masses were to believe that a war with iran would be a bloody and costly pyrrich affair, would they be so eager to cry havoc and cast loose the die, and vice versa if a war with iran could be sold as being painless in treasure and blood , wouldn't this make such a conflict seem more palatable? Of course i'm not suggesting that such a cabal of jewish and evangical christians exists and is doing their best to engineer such a conflict regardless of the costs to safeguard the zionist state. But who is to say in these most interesting of days what is real and what is shadow? Afterall it's not as if false premises have led the u.s. hegemony to wage war before :)
I do agree that the majority approved of an Iraq invasion based on what would now appear to be false information about WMD’s. I think it appealed to Bush 2 as he would be finishing something his father Bush 1 did not. He also had willing support and most likely persuasion from Cheney and Rumsfield as they saw opportunities for their corporate friends.
For me that is where the cabal is, the corporate entity and not some Zionist entity. Politicians are the all too willing friends of big business as they line their pockets from it. I think everyone forgets that war is profitable for the corporate entity after all where are all those $billions going that the US is spending in Iraq.
As regards Iran at this point in time neither the citizens of the USA or the EU have the desire for an invasion. They see the snafu that is Iraq so will not support it. Neither the US or EU governments could risk such unpopularity by going against current public opinion. As long as Iran does not inflame the situation with a hostile act that turns public opinion then its citizens have nothing to fear.
Then again we are just ordinary people and have no idea what certain sections on both sides may be plotting to induce a war.

[Abbas]

I do agree that the majority approved of an Iraq invasion based on what would now appear to be false information about WMD’s. I think it appealed to Bush 2 as he would be finishing something his father Bush 1 did not. He also had willing support and most likely persuasion from Cheney and Rumsfield as they saw opportunities for their corporate friends.
For me that is where the cabal is, the corporate entity and not some Zionist entity. Politicians are the all too willing friends of big business as they line their pockets from it. I think everyone forgets that war is profitable for the corporate entity after all where are all those $billions going that the US is spending in Iraq.
As regards Iran at this point in time neither the citizens of the USA or the EU have the desire for an invasion. They see the snafu that is Iraq so will not support it. Neither the US or EU governments could risk such unpopularity by going against current public opinion. As long as Iran does not inflame the situation with a hostile act that turns public opinion then its citizens have nothing to fear.
Then again we are just ordinary people and have no idea what certain sections on both sides may be plotting to induce a war.

simple but precise.