Has war started with Iran?

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by Saladin

They have a dodgy reputation if you ask me - prior to their full page ad they weren't even in the business of energy or manufacturing, they specialised in credit card security. One of their techs just stumbles on a new form of free energy while trying to build a better magnetic card reader? Come on now..

Well, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Accidental discovery is not as rare as some think. The only reason I think it could be something is because they have not wanted a cent from all of this. At this stage they can't be accused of any wrong doing. All we can do is wait and see what is unveiled..

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

Nuke's are unnecessary when modern pgm's have a circular error of probability of >1m and have penetrative capabilities exceeding 30m of reinforced concrete. This coupled with Novel Explosive warhead's (FAE) provides a lethality against hardened structures target's which EXCEED's that of sub MT nuclear devices.

Best penetration I've heard of would be the BLU-109 which can penetrate about 15' (~4m) of reinforced concrete (here). It's a dumb bomb but modern versions are fitted with the paveway III guidance system giving a reasonable hit/miss ratio but not within 1m.
The latest PGM I've seen is the Small Diameter Bomb but that only has accuracy of 5-8 m circular error probable. It also doesn't have the penetration of the BLU-109 being only 6' of reinforced concrete.
Given this information it seems unlikely that a conventional weapon would be able to penetrate Irans underground facilities (est. of Natanz).

[Tranquil^]

The only systems which are an actual threat would be the S-300/400's. Most lethal sam system in the world bar none. Any military operations against Iran will be decided by the air campaign.

The question is, has the US compromised the S-300/400 system. Its highly likely they have (no doubt greece gave them one to study). If the US chooses this time to play its trump card they will have roughly 24 hours to hard kill the SAM complexes. After 24 hrs, the fire control system and radar control systems will be reconfigured negating any US electronic counter measures.



Artillery has no combat value unless you can assure air dominance or atleast provide temporary air superiority. Same goes for modernised T-72's, even if they had the latest Russian ammunition. They are useless if they don’t arrive at the front due to Air Attack.
Combat power is not measured in tanks, men and artillery pieces. Its measured by system lethality and capability
For example:

500 tanks, 10,000 men, 5000 artillery pieces could be destroyed or prevented from entering the fight by a single package of 10 tactical aircraft.
~~

10,000 Tanks, 250,000 men, 100,000 howitzers/guns could be neutralised by a single B2 on a single night. JDAMS through the General's bedroom window's, JDAM's destroying parliamentary buildings tend to reduce the combat effectiveness of large army group's.


Modern warfare is about quality over quantity, this is clearly evident in the way armies are procuring equipment. Even Russia and China are spending the $ on high combat power equipment. Such as Submarines, advanced ballistic missiles, gen3.5 tactical fighters

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Best penetration I've heard of would be the BLU-109 which can penetrate about 15' (~4m) of reinforced concrete (here). It's a dumb bomb but modern versions are fitted with the paveway III guidance system giving a reasonable hit/miss ratio but not within 1m.
The latest PGM I've seen is the Small Diameter Bomb but that only has accuracy of 5-8 m circular error probable. It also doesn't have the penetration of the BLU-109 being only 6' of reinforced concrete.
Given this information it seems unlikely that a conventional weapon would be able to penetrate Irans underground facilities (est. of Natanz).

And your figures are classified or unclassified? obviously the unclassified figures are SUBSTANTIALY lower than the classified number. Why is this you ask? Im sure you can work that out yourself...

ofc i have no (*cough* unclassified) data to backup my claim... but when theres a need for a certain capability its safe to say the US has a technical means of providing some form of kill against this facility. Be it complete destruction of the complex through penetration to the main machinery plant. Or destruction of the facility's air filtration plant(s) and system. Destrcution of the lines that provide water, fuel and external power.

infact it doesnt really need to be a hard kill does it? A soft kill where no one can work in the facilty or even enter is still a kill.

[Hannibal]

At last, after 6 years of work, the illudium pu36 explosive space modulator. At long last, my dream come true.

-George W. Bush

[Wally Simmonds]

Didn't Syria purchase some high quality air defence systems a while back, only to have them being bombed into oblivion by the IAF?

In regards to quality of quantity, while I agree to an extent, what of the last wars that Iran was involved in? Looking back at the Iran-Iraq conflict the reason why the Iraqis did so badly was the fact that the Iranians cottoned on that their tanks were rubbish so they didn't use them - masses of infantry with RPG's seem to do the trick against T72's quite nicely. Obviously this tactic isn't going to work that well in open desert, but given the Soviet (and I suppose you could say US) failures in mountainous country side in Afghanistan you would think this is where the Iranians will concentrate their efforts?

As you have also posted in the last Israeli/Lebanon conflict thread, one could assume that Iranian doctrine was also used there with some success - especially against the Merkevas. All this leads me to believe that Iran won't even bother trying to neutralise the American air threat too much, and concentrate at what they're good at.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

ofc i have no (*cough* unclassified) data to backup my claim... but when theres a need for a certain capability its safe to say the US has a technical means of providing some form of kill against this facility.

Go back and read the previous link I posted - the good doctor points out that there is no physical way to produce the figures you pulled out of your ass.

Be it complete destruction of the complex through penetration to the main machinery plant. Or destruction of the facility's air filtration plant(s) and system. Destrcution of the lines that provide water, fuel and external power.

infact it doesnt really need to be a hard kill does it? A soft kill where no one can work in the facilty or even enter is still a kill.

This is true but can the US even get a soft kill?
The Tor-M1 system that Iran is presently taking delivery of seems quite capable against most air targets.

Then there would be the inbuilt protections and backups that would be built into the bases et al.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Wally Simmonds

Didn't Syria purchase some high quality air defence systems a while back, only to have them being bombed into oblivion by the IAF?

Not that I can recall. It may have happened but not recently.

[Native]

Indeed you bring up valid points regarding air power. But no country in history has successfully invaded and conquered a country without adequate ground forces.

Even with massive air superiority I still hold that the US is incapable of conquering Iran because of the cost in US lives/resources to invade and control a country of Iran's magnitude. With an army of that size it would be easy to spread such a force over the country and air support can be difficult (and costly) in build up urban areas where Iran/US forces would be mostly engaged.

Massed assaults would indeed be impossible without sufficient air cover but Iran don't need to. US forces would need to engage them and Iran does have sufficient munitions for a prolonged urban war where many advantages in technology would be negated - especially with the numerical advantage, the home ground and the short supply lines.

If US forces were on the defensive - then yeah it would be a one way war...

But again - I am only an arm chair general. And you do raise good points... only time shall tell I suppose if ol' Bush and his mysterious backs get their way.

[Sgt Seb]

no point in invading...the US just wants to knock out their nuclear weapons capability, which they are more then capable of doing without ground forces.

i heard recently that israel is already planning strikes against suspected facilities, so the US might not even have to do the dirty work themselves.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Ruskies still supplying Iran...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3931411a12.html

Originally Posted by article

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov, asked about the sale, told reporters in Moscow: "We have supplied the modern short-range anti-aircraft systems TOR-M1 in accordance with our contracts.

"We're developing our military and technical co-operation with Iran in accordance with international law and will continue to develop it," he said. "And if Iran wants to buy defensive, I underline defensive, equipment for its armed forces then why not?"

Pixie

[Konev]

US wouldnt be ablt to take on Iran and Syria (protection pact) the Iranians are not stocking cheap and nasty equipment, but high quality stuff like the afore mentioned S300 missile system which will be at the nuclear sites and also anti tank missiles like the Metis and Kornet which will penetrate 1200mm or RHA armour behind a ERA layer at 4km. goodbye M1A2s.

the airforce is also fairly modern, and equiped with yet more topnotch gear like the C902 which would make shot work of carrier groups, even US wargames have shown this.

but hardware is only one thing, determination is another, i doubt that the persions (note, not an arab nation) would be to happy to let another county like the USA after seeing the mess they have made in Iraq.

but the main problem for any US invading force would be behind them in Iraq and Afghanistan, the resistance movement there would skyrocket, airbases would not be safe for strike missions to leave from, supply lines would be attacked constantly.

there is no way in hell the US could pull of Iran

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Go back and read the previous link I posted - the good doctor points out that there is no physical way to produce the figures you pulled out of your ass.


This is true but can the US even get a soft kill?
The Tor-M1 system that Iran is presently taking delivery of seems quite capable against most air targets.

Then there would be the inbuilt protections and backups that would be built into the bases et al.

Perhaps USAF operational planners are indeed highly optimistic about the capabilities of its weapons. Maybe time will tell

Tor's a Great system, probably the most capable low-medium altitude system in the world today. And by far the coolest looking As a point defence system Tor's will engage the actual munitions as they fall onto the target. Engaging the aircraft would not be wise, due to the range advantage offered by the HARM and SLAMMER anti-radiation missiles.

Yep, lots of redundancies would be inbuilt to any facility like that, I just don’t see it being able to withstand a serious air attack. 18 F-15'E's carrying 6000kg's of ordnance per aircraft is going to ruin the day of anyone working inside that complex. Not to mention the effect on sensitive equipment with the shock effect of 100,000 kg's of bomb's.

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by Native

Indeed you bring up valid points regarding air power. But no country in history has successfully invaded and conquered a country without adequate ground forces.

yeh true that, id highly doubt any US politician/general is considering a ground campaign.

Id suspect something more like Operation Allied Force, bomb the shit out of them and *hope* they want to talk about things

[Troy]

Originally Posted by Wally Simmonds

Didn't Syria purchase some high quality air defence systems a while back, only to have them being bombed into oblivion by the IAF?

The IAF send in some remote controlled mini airplanes which had the same electronic signature as a normal fighter jet. The Syrians came out with their guns blazzing and shot down these model planes with their air defence systems. Once these systems were exposed, IAF send in their jets and blasted the Syrian air defence systems out of the sand.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

Id suspect something more like Operation Allied Force, bomb the shit out of them and *hope* they want to talk about things

Yeah, because history reinforces that as a strategy that works without fail.

[Konev]

and just another note, it took on average 4 guided bombs to kill a tank in the gulf wars. the US guided munitions accuracy is within a 13m radius of the target

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by Wally Simmonds

Didn't Syria purchase some high quality air defence systems a while back, only to have them being bombed into oblivion by the IAF?

In regards to quality of quantity, while I agree to an extent, what of the last wars that Iran was involved in? Looking back at the Iran-Iraq conflict the reason why the Iraqis did so badly was the fact that the Iranians cottoned on that their tanks were rubbish so they didn't use them - masses of infantry with RPG's seem to do the trick against T72's quite nicely. Obviously this tactic isn't going to work that well in open desert, but given the Soviet (and I suppose you could say US) failures in mountainous country side in Afghanistan you would think this is where the Iranians will concentrate their efforts?

As you have also posted in the last Israeli/Lebanon conflict thread, one could assume that Iranian doctrine was also used there with some success - especially against the Merkevas. All this leads me to believe that Iran won't even bother trying to neutralise the American air threat too much, and concentrate at what they're good at.

The difference between the war of 2006 and any projected conflict with Iran is based around its military industrial complex. The IAF bombed power stations bridges etc, simply because there was no military infrastructure to speak off. Iran's highly developed indigenous defence industry will be bombed literally into dust. This imo, is one of the prime reasons why Iran does not want a conflict with the US. Is telling America to go fuck themselves worth having your trillion $ arm's industry reduced to rubble?


You bring up a good point regarding the Iran Iraq war. The real difference here is the level of overmatch US/Nato systems provide.

M1A1's were killing Iraqi tanks in 1990 before the Iraqi's even knew allied forces where in their area of operations (detection at 5k, identification at 4k, killed at 3.5k.) Iraqi day sights couldn’t even see that far, whilst allied forces were engaging at NIGHT from 3.5k… can you say Overmatch?
Fixed Iraqi positions were identified by satellite and destroyed by aircraft flying 10km above them. Or by cruise missiles navigating dry riverbed systems at 3m above ground level.
Entire Iraqi infantry battalions were rendered ineffective by 2 aircraft, with the only warning being the sky turning black from the thousands of anti personal bomblets falling from the sky. Or by Multiple Rocket Launching System's firing from 300km in behind the Kuwaiti border.
Allied Airborne Warning And Control aircraft could detect Iraqi aircraft the moment they took off. With friendly aircraft vectored to intercept before the Iraqi aircraft had even raised their landing gear!

And all that happened 15 years ago. Whilst its more than possible Iran has modernised T-72's with the latest Russian Thermal Imagers, Sight Stabilisation and the very latest Fire control System. And ofc the latest Armour Piecing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot rounds..
They may have a few company sized units with this gear at best. Whilst America's Navel infantry has Core sized formations equipped with all the above.
Note that’s the marines, not the army… If America's navel infantry has a more capable Main Battle Tank (and more numerous) than most nation's Army. What does that say about the capbilty of the entire US armed forces?...


This is precisely the reason why states are pursuing nuclear technology.. There is NO conventional deterrent to US Aggression, absolutely none. The only assured means of protecting your country from US invasion is through a demonstrated nuclear capability.

[Tranquil^]

edit: regarding the marine's comment it’s a little ambiguous once i re-read it.

If the US Marine Core has a more capable and numerous MBT force than most Army's. This obviously means the US Army's Heavy Tank Brigades are going to be at a whole new level of capability.

Its also worth mentioning the fact that America's Navel infantry has a bigger Air Foce than most nations on Earth. Note that’s not the Navy, the USMC has its own Aviation section which operates completely separate from the US Navy.


How can any nation on earth compete conventionally with this type of force structure?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Troy

The IAF send in some remote controlled mini airplanes which had the same electronic signature as a normal fighter jet. The Syrians came out with their guns blazzing and shot down these model planes with their air defence systems. Once these systems were exposed, IAF send in their jets and blasted the Syrian air defence systems out of the sand.

Got a link?

[Tranquil^]

The Bekaa Valley War


http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2002/0602bekaa.asp


One of the defining moments of modern Air Warfare

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

Tor's a Great system, probably the most capable low-medium altitude system in the world today. And by far the coolest looking As a point defence system Tor's will engage the actual munitions as they fall onto the target. Engaging the aircraft would not be wise, due to the range advantage offered by the HARM and SLAMMER anti-radiation missiles.

Certainly a consideration and would depend upon their main air defence capabilities. According to this article they didn't get the s300 system from Russia. This would leave some doubt as to the effectiveness of their missile defenses.

Yep, lots of redundancies would be inbuilt to any facility like that, I just don’t see it being able to withstand a serious air attack. 18 F-15'E's carrying 6000kg's of ordnance per aircraft is going to ruin the day of anyone working inside that complex. Not to mention the effect on sensitive equipment with the shock effect of 100,000 kg's of bomb's.

100,000kgs may be sent but how much would arrive is the question.

[Troy]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Got a link?

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...89/hurley.html


Another technological innovation that contributed to the Israeli victory was the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV). The IAF used this drone aircraft in the months preceding the invasion to "fingerprint" surface-to-air radar, providing information vital to Israeli countermeasures.43 When the battle actually began, RPVs were used as "decoys" to simulate electronically the radar signature of full-size strike aircraft and trick the Syrians into activating their SAM target acquisition and tracking radars.44 This ruse provided ample targets for the AGM-78 Standard antiradiation missile (ARM) and AGM-45 Shrike air-launched ARMs that followed.45

[ipee]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

This is precisely the reason why states are pursuing nuclear technology.. There is NO conventional deterrent to US Aggression, absolutely none. The only assured means of protecting your country from US invasion is through a demonstrated nuclear capability.

You do realise that the US WILL lose the war in Iraq don't you???

[chubby]

Artillery has no combat value unless you can assure air dominance or atleast provide temporary air superiority. Same goes for modernised T-72's, even if they had the latest Russian ammunition. They are useless if they don’t arrive at the front due to Air Attack.
Combat power is not measured in tanks, men and artillery pieces. Its measured by system lethality and capability
For example:

500 tanks, 10,000 men, 5000 artillery pieces could be destroyed or prevented from entering the fight by a single package of 10 tactical aircraft.
~~

10,000 Tanks, 250,000 men, 100,000 howitzers/guns could be neutralised by a single B2 on a single night. JDAMS through the General's bedroom window's, JDAM's destroying parliamentary buildings tend to reduce the combat effectiveness of large army group's.


Modern warfare is about quality over quantity, this is clearly evident in the way armies are procuring equipment. Even Russia and China are spending the $ on high combat power equipment. Such as Submarines, advanced ballistic missiles, gen3.5 tactical fighters
Yesterday 17:02

sotto voche / isn't this kind of thinking exactly the reason ameriKa is in this mess?

[Konev]

one up for what was probaly a tor-m1

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_5615540.htm

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Modern wars arent about who has the biggest military cock - it hasnt been like that since World War II. The technological edge the US have may make it essentially undefeatable in any sort of conventional war - but as Iraq is showing, no one wants to play conventional with the US. The US military simply isnt designed to deal with hordes of insane suicidal martyrs. Iran would play out the same way.

Someones gonna have to step up and use them a few tactical nukes. Commit some genocide. Stop being pussies. Salt the earth.

[Wally Simmonds]

Instead of doing that, why don't they just hire the Iranians to take over Iraq?

"Look, we don't give a shit what goes on, just make sure our business interests are represented, okay?"

[com]

Iran got a few of these recently from Russia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c7pS...elated&search=

[Rep]

Because in the Oil Wars , the US's biggest enemy is not Iran , but OPEC.

You can blame Bush senior for that , he's long had a beef against OPEC for the 70's oil shocks.

[Rep]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_5615540.htm

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by ipee

You do realise that the US WILL lose the war in Iraq don't you???

They will loose the occupation phase of the war, no doubt about it.How does that change the fact that the US can blow up what it wants, whenever the fuck it wants?

You don’t need to occupy a state to make it do what you want. You just need to exert the right amount of political will. This can take the form of sanctions and aid packages, or JDAM's & Tomahawk's.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

JDAM's & Tomahawk's.

That's my kind of diplomacy.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

They will loose the occupation phase of the war, no doubt about it.How does that change the fact that the US can blow up what it wants, whenever the fuck it wants?

You don’t need to occupy a state to make it do what you want. You just need to exert the right amount of political will. This can take the form of sanctions and aid packages, or JDAM's & Tomahawk's.

And eventually the entire world will rise up against them. Don't think the US economy will do to well with no trading with them and each time one of them leaves the country they get shot.

[ipee]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

They will loose the occupation phase of the war, no doubt about it.How does that change the fact that the US can blow up what it wants, whenever the fuck it wants?

It can? There is only ONE reason why the U.S hasn't already attempted regime change in N. Korea - China. The U.S knows damn well that war with either China, or Russia for that matter, would leave America in social and economic disarray.....not too dissimilar to Great Britain after WWII. Although probable victory for the U.S......the human and financial cost would far outweigh any benefits victory bought for the country. And vice-versa would apply to the situation in Taiwan. The U.S is the ONLY reason, Taiwan is not under chinese control at the moment.

And to keep this post on topic, no, you will not see any U.S ground invasion of Iran simply because full-scale war with Iran would mean "THE DRAFT".

[darkness]

Originally Posted by CCS

That's my kind of diplomacy.

Diplomacy: The art of saying "nice doggie" while trying to find a big rock.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ipee

You do realise that the US WILL lose the war in Iraq don't you???

"will"? Future tense?

[Simon]

More lolarity from the USA.

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

And the reaction from the White House?

"We don't talk to evil"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

[ZuldaN]

Sweet christ

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by Simon

More lolarity from the USA.



And the reaction from the White House?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

Given this is a news release from the British Television Network... sorry, British Broadcasting Corporation *cough*... does this mean even Britain is abandoning the US now?