Iran Military Forum

I feel like it missed the point.

The idea is not to have longer range missiles that can hit Europe, but rather to have intermediate and medium range missiles that can deliver heavier war heads to Tel-Aviv with greater accuracy.

There is no need to hit London or Paris since they get their orders from Tel Aviv, anyways.
If England strikes Iran, then that is the same as Israhell striking Iran; and so Iran must be able to hit back at Tel-Aviv.

The way to do that is not to have longer range missiles, but rather missiles that carry a heavier payload with greater accuracy.

The article seems to ignore that aspect of Iranian thinking, and instead focuses on Iran's ability to hit Western targets.

The way to prevent or deter a British attack is not to be able to frighten Britain, but to be able to frighten Israhell. England doesn't care about its own safety when it comes to obeying Israhell's bidding. England and the USA will sacrifice themselves for Israhell, as they are slowly doing now in Iraq.

But if you can frighten Israhell, then you can prevent them from giving the USA orders to bomb Iran.

I feel like it missed the point.

The idea is not to have longer range missiles that can hit Europe, but rather to have intermediate and medium range missiles that can deliver heavier war heads to Tel-Aviv with greater accuracy.

There is no need to hit London or Paris since they get their orders from Tel Aviv, anyways.
If England strikes Iran, then that is the same as Israhell striking Iran; and so Iran must be able to hit back at Tel-Aviv.

The way to do that is not to have longer range missiles, but rather missiles that carry a heavier payload with greater accuracy.

The article seems to ignore that aspect of Iranian thinking, and instead focuses on Iran's ability to hit Western targets.

The way to prevent or deter a British attack is not to be able to frighten Britain, but to be able to frighten Israhell. England doesn't care about its own safety when it comes to obeying Israhell's bidding. England and the USA will sacrifice themselves for Israhell, as they are slowly doing now in Iraq.

But if you can frighten Israhell, then you can prevent them from giving the USA orders to bomb Iran.

You know, i would have to disagree and agree with you. Though iran does not intend to hit paris but having the capability to do that is a major strategic advantage, these contries do care about israel but they also care more about there own population. Plus this report has changed the goal sposts,  which in essence signals that they have conceded to Iran. Even when iran has these missles and war occurs i doubt iran will use them, but none the less it is another major deterrance. Its just like having nuclear weapons which you will never use.

Plus think of it like this, in 5 years time you have missles that can reach paris, and advance nuclear technology. It is as good as having the nuclear weapon but without the cost.

It still provokes greater attempts at subversive regime change and sanctions. Their sanctions have not been effective yet, but who knows what they will do if they are frightened.

Brother,

They ARE frightened to death of the Islamic Republic and my question is what have they NOT tried??

War, they tried that.
Regime changed, they tried that TWICE.
Terrorism, they are doing that.
Assassinations, they have done that.
Use of chemical weapons, they gave saddam that.

The ONLY thing they have not done is use a nuclear weapon against IR.

I think they are at a dead end and are pushing hard for LONG TERM regime change.

IR officials and rahbar understand this VERY well and have always stressed the youth need to be active in confronting the enemies plans.

Sardar jafari also stated that we are in a full fledged soft war, i think he did not want to use the term cold war but that is what it is.

This article is crapola

Either Iran's REGIONAL ballistic missile deterrence will suffice or (we still keep hearing all kinds of bravado talk from local US commanders, Israelis and oil sheiks to prove otherwise), if not:

1) conflict with Iran will be asymmetric, i.e. "the Coalition" will try to destroy all Iranian MILITARY assets (such as jets, airbases, surface ships, stationary missile launchers and radars etc.) as soon as possible and then...

2) the Coalition will keep trying to destroy all remaining ("mobile") MILITARY assets, while...

3) the Coalition will try to find every kind of excuse to destroy all of Iran's ECONOMIC infrastructure as well (especially if Iran retaliates with its MRBMs too soon), so their companies can also profit from post-conflict rebuilding efforts (in exchange for cheap oil); see Iraq, Libya and my previous comment
http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?topic=8113.msg71512#msg71512

IMO it will be wise for Iran to make it very clear that ANY country WHEREVER in the world willing to participate in a coalition which does not emphatically exclude option 3) beforehand, will risk suffering the same level of ECONOMIC damage.

This would make it necessary to develop INTERCONTINENTAL missile technologies, giving Western media indeed more material to scare their audience with: ICBM "nukes"!

Another option would be developing SATELLITE KILLERS, which aren't as "scary", possibly easier(?) to develop but hardly less destructive ECONOMICALLY.

How about the rumors we have 32 Warheads but them when USSR fell

These are interesting items, however, if it comes to trading REAL blows, and if Iran gets a sense that an attack is certain and imminent, I won't be surprised if they will detonate a nuclear device to send a pointed message and bolster deterrence.  I feel strongly the IRI has the capacity to rapidly assemble a test device (at least) and this is almost certainly a scenario for opponents.

Mamdali

Rapidly assembling would not be a problem for Iran, what would pose a problem is rapidly enriching to 90%+. While we have enough enriched uranium for nuclear devices right now, we can't enrich them further, fast enough to be termed, "rapid". That will of course change once we have our 50k centrifuges in place at natanz (currently at 8k).

They ARE frightened to death of the Islamic Republic and my question is what have they NOT tried??

There are quite a few other things they can do.
They can tighten sanctions much harder, for example.

Look at it from this point of view: Let's suppose we have X amount of resources set for missile technology and manufacturing, including labor, time, finance, materials, expertise, etc.

If you divide that into (1/3)X for satellite killers, (1/3)X for Israhell, and (1/3)X for West Europe, then you are spreading your self too thin. You won't be able to keep up with Israhell's advancements in anti-missile technology.

But if you put (2/3)X investment into building missiles that can out maneuver Israhell's Arrow and Patriot system enhancements, deliver a heavier payload, and have greater accuracy, then you are managing your X amount of resources in the best way.
The other (1/3)X can go towards satellite killers.
 

---

these contries do care about israel but they also care more about there own population

I'm sorry, but these countries are ruled by international bankers who give orders to the politicians. These bankers (like the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Bernanke, etc) don't care about people. They will give orders to the politicians to put Israhell first. That's why, for example, most US politicians are Israhelli firsters; it's because the bankers that back them are from the same Zionist group.

So, Western countries are not run by their elected officials except in a specific range of functions which the bankers allow them. The Zionist bankers care nothing for people and put Israhell first.

So, it is pointless to point anything at Europe.

I totally agree assumming the current enrichment sites are the only ones we know.  I personally doubt that.  I believe there are secret sites that will cumulatively enable rapid enrichment above 90%.  The possible flaw in my argument is the source of the mineral and yellow cake and from what I understand that is monitored as well.  I doubt an entire MINE is hidden (right?).  Given that, I still have a tough time believing the IRI doesn't have some sophisticated contingency for a rapid detonation.  Of course I may very well be wrong but I'll be surprised if I am.

Anyway, I think I unintentionally derailed the intent of the thread.  Apologies.

Mamdali

A think one thing that hints at what you said is the fact that the IAEA said that Iran doesn't install centrifuges as fast (at natanz) as it used to. Now either they decided to slow down production so they can build better models later on, or part of their produced centrifuges goes somewhere else.

How exactly? China and Russia might veto it and if they REALLY want to sanction Iran, they'd need to set up a naval blockade, hence war.

The Wall Street Journal reported that last week there were hundreds of foreign business men from various countries visiting Iran, including Europe.

There is still a great deal of business that occurs between Iran and the West.
Western countries can decide to sanction Iran outside of the United Nations.

France, England, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Italy and other such countries can decide to close their ports to ships and aircraft that are traveling to or from Iran.
There are still some banks that do business in the West, there are embassies open there, and many of the current sanctions are not strictly enforced.

The sanctions can become much worse.
Missiles that can hit Europe would be a strategic blunder.
We must also consider the political and economic and social results of our actions.

I don't mean to derail the discussion by talking about sanctions.
My point is that Missiles that can hit Western Europe are a mistake for now.

---

As for resources, imagine that you have 12 scientists, 28 engineers, and 112 technicians of varying skills. You have a 100 million Euro budget to last you for several years.
You can work on:
missiles that can strike Europe,
missiles that can alter course to evade Arrow systems while carrying heavier warheads,
missiles that can have multiple reentry war heads to evade Arrow systems,
missiles that can pin point satellites,

It is better to take out the first option to focus more on the other 3 options.
For example, instead of 3 scientists working on each of the four projects, you could have four scientists working on each of the 3 projects.

And when it comes time for manufacturing, you only have 3 types of missiles to produce instead of 4. That means 3 factories instead of 4, or six factories instead of 8.

And when it comes to number of missiles, you could have 30 missiles that can hit Israhell instead of 20 for Israhell and 10 for Europe.

Well, let's look at it from a different point of view.

Let's talk about what Iran will do, and not what we think it should do.

I think that Iran is not going to build satellite killers or missiles that can reach Europe any time soon.

I think that Iran is going to focus on space exploration.

I also don't think that Iran is going to build the kinds of missiles that the article talks about where there are four rockets surrounding the missile (for added lift).

---

Is a missile a missile?

That's an interesting topic.
Would you like to continue discussing that?

Indeed to date there has never been an practical ballistic missile that had strap-on boosters. Such rockets are too large for silos and require too much time and effort to move and assemble, making them incredibly impractical. Not to mention because of their size the only facilities that would would be able to launch them could never be hidden making them easy targets for a first strike. This is why the Soviets R-7 was such a terrible ICBM and why its service in that role was quite short (just 6 years).

YMJ,

Indeed on a very basic level, to achieve greater ranges for ballistic missiles (as well as SLVs) there are two things to worry about primarily: Thrust and Burn Time.

For example if you have a very powerful rocket engine it doesnt do you much good when its burn time is too short to best use that thrust. Both factors are very important when designing ballistic missiles of any range and the goal is achieving the proper balance of thrust and burn time.

Fuel type of course is another major factor. Generaly on ballistic missiles solid fuel motors are superior in thrust and range to similar size liquid fuel missiles. For example Chinese DF-15 is dimensionally fairly similar to a Scud (slightly shorter, slightly greater diameter and a little heavier) but has twice the range. Now when you get larger to the size of SLVs Liquid fuelled rockets are prefered because they generally have longer burn times allow them to achieve higher orbits with greater payloads.