Author Topic: Is it possible that at the last ARMY DAY Iran hasn't showed his Shabab missiles (Read 1296 times)

stefano84 · « **on:** June 02, 2011, 12:44:14 PM »

because the most of them was destroyed in the destruction f the Imam Alì Base???

YMJ · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2011, 02:42:30 PM »

Quote from: stefano84 on June 02, 2011, 12:44:14 PM

because the most of them was destroyed in the destruction f the Imam Alì Base???

Yeah because they keep all their missiles in one location, just so that could happen.

Nonbarbari · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2011, 03:33:01 PM »

looool

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2011, 06:24:05 PM »

What you are you talking about? Since when was the Imam Ali based destroyed?

Not to mention Iran has at least three publically known Missile bases, all of which are believed to have Shahab-3s in their inventories.

stefano84 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2011, 06:27:14 PM »

yes but it seems that all of them was stored ther for manutention... typo on google "imam alì base destroyed" or similar... since 15 oct 2010 no new photos of shabab was published...

Ayyash · « **Reply #5 on:** June 02, 2011, 07:19:32 PM »

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1444705&SM=1

It's doubtful that this was the reason because Imam Ali a) isn't the only missile base, let alone the only one with Shahab-3s (although the last part is a guess) and b) the complex is a large place. The majority of the missile storage are in hardened shelters dug into the hillside. The explosion meanwhile probably happened in one of the larger buildings (or underground as Debka news suggests

) where construction or assembly takes place. Even if it was a perfectly orchestrated sabotage operation there would still be no way it could hamstring the IRGC aerospace division in such a large way.

YMJ · « **Reply #6 on:** June 02, 2011, 08:24:37 PM »

Where is the logic in people?

Why would a country under serious threat leave all their missiles in one base? Its retarded. Do you think Iranian leaders are retarded? Or are you trying to indicate something about yourself?

Just think.. even if its just a bit!!

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 02, 2011, 09:06:55 PM »

Not to mention most Shahab-3s are probably stored the same way as Scuds..In other words the missile body and warhead sections are disassembled. Add to that the fact they are only fuelled before launch so the fuel and missiles are likely not even in the same buildings. More likely the missiles are kept in storage underground and the fuel in kept in a connected building. Now if a fire erupted in the fuel storage area it could have spread to the missile storage area but I would think the buildings were constructed to prevent such a spread.

Pasdar · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2011, 08:47:35 AM »

Liquid fueled missiles are always left empty and it is common practice to have all missiles without warhead stored.

stefano84 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 16, 2011, 04:28:12 PM »

Quote from: YMJ on June 02, 2011, 08:24:37 PM

Where is the logic in people?

Why would a country under serious threat leave all their missiles in one base? Its retarded. Do you think Iranian leaders are retarded? Or are you trying to indicate something about yourself?

Just think.. even if its just a bit!!

so explain me why there aren't new photos?

YMJ · « **Reply #10 on:** June 16, 2011, 04:42:57 PM »

Quote from: stefano84 on June 16, 2011, 04:28:12 PM

so explain me why there aren't new photos?

Because they are displaying other newer missiles/weapons/satellite carriers and don't need to display pictures of a missile they built 20 years ago.

maydayfire · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2011, 11:18:06 PM »

IRGC military defense doctrine is a based on the concept of Island-defense, which means that each province can fight wars independent of the other province and even independent than the central command in Khatam-ol-anbia bases in Tehran. Therefore, with such doctrine in practice, they will not store all their shahab missiles in a minor/secondary base in the Lorestan Province. Even if they did, do you think that they would drive the shahab missiles from the Losrestan province to tehran for the parades in tehran, a 600 km drive?

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 16, 2011, 11:52:55 PM »

Assuming of course the Shahab-3s on parade are always real missiles and not mock-ups. Now clearly some are real missiles but it's also logical to assume some of them are mock-ups (Soviets did the same thing).

But driving them a good distance for a parade isn't unusual at all. The Chinese do the same thing every year when they parade their DF-11s and DF-15s in Beijing either most are deployed in the southern provinces (aimed at Taiwan), so I see no problem with Iran transporting them across country for a parade.

wisdom · « **Reply #13 on:** June 17, 2011, 04:01:56 AM »

Iranians must not like driving

Pasdar · « **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:11:49 AM »

Considering there are arms stashes all across the land, it's not hard to imagine they wouldn't do the same with the missiles.

Chacko-T · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2011, 10:34:22 AM »

It was estimated that Iran produces nearly 100 Shahab-3s per year. Its simply impossible to storage hundreds of IRBMs in one place.

berislac · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2011, 03:08:11 PM »

Maybe they put them all in Venezuela :)For me this is something not worth of talking about.There is no chance that Iran is placed all of its missiles in one place because this is simply millitary stupid.Why would they put all missiles in one place in western province of Loristan?as i know the American bases are in Afghanistan so missiles need to be placed towards Afghanistan to.Its simply complete out of any logic.Iran by now have thousands if not tens of thousands of Shahab missiles and someone is saying that they put it all at one place?Idiotic to say something like this.So one direct hit by enemies and we are out of Shahab?No way brothers.

Nonbarbari · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2011, 04:49:01 PM »

Some ppl have no logical way of thinking... So is just waste of time to explain it them. Them need to see it in time of war, when shahab missile hits american bases.. Then they understand how st** they have been..

@berislac

Bro I dont think we have so many shabah missile, I think we have at most we have 1000 or something like that, They not gonna use all there budget on producing shahab-3 missiles.. Thats just me...

berislac · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:37:26 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Nonbarbari on June 17, 2011, 04:49:01 PM
Some ppl have no logical way of thinking... So is just waste of time to explain it them. Them need to see it in time of war, when shahab missile hits american bases.. Then they understand how st** they have been..
This i do not understand.
@berislac

Bro I dont think we have so many shabah missile, I think we have at most we have 1000 or something like that, They not gonna use all there budget on producing shahab-3 missiles.. Thats just me...

Well i am no expert on how many Shahabs do Iran really have.My army could not produce not a single one whit all of its resources.But somewhat i think that Iranian generals do understand the strength of this missile.That is why i think that Iran is mass producing it in great numbers.Just my thoughts.

Pasdar · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:59:42 PM »

Iran should be focusing on creating single stage solid fueled missiles with 2k km range, mass produce that.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2011, 03:34:14 AM »

Pasdar,

I'm honestly not such a thing has ever been built. Even the most compact Solid fuel Medium range missiles have at least two stages.

Now theoretically, I think you could develop a 2000km range Solid-fuel missile is you based it on the first stage of a modern ICBM like the Topol but that is a level of engine technology I believe is quite a bit ahead of what Iran has now.

Pasdar · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2011, 10:46:10 AM »

Quote from: Eagle2009 on June 18, 2011, 03:34:14 AM

Pasdar,

I'm honestly not such a thing has ever been built. Even the most compact Solid fuel Medium range missiles have at least two stages.

Now theoretically, I think you could develop a 2000km range Solid-fuel missile is you based it on the first stage of a modern ICBM like the Topol but that is a level of engine technology I believe is quite a bit ahead of what Iran has now.

Well I don't hold a register of world missile ranges in my memory, but you probably haven't seen it because countries resort in jumping from one range to another based on their perceived threats. E.g. Jumping from one missile that has 700km range to another that has 1300km range, to another that has 3000km range.

There is nothing in current tech that is withholding missile developing countries from specifically creating a single solid fueled missile with a range of 2000km. Iran's missile development and production obviously takes its own surrounding countries into consideration when creating its longer range missiles (categories/ranges).

Iran needs to work toward this (w.r.t above 1k range):

Single stage SF 1.100 km range (replacement for Sh-2)
Single stage SF 2.000 km range (replacement for Sh-3)
Double stage SF 5.000 km range
Triple stage SF 12.000 km range

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:04:45 AM »

Pasdar,

While I too have no such register, I can pretty reliably identify most solid-fuel ballistic missiles built in the last 30 or so years off hand (especially Soviet/Russian and Chinese systems).

And I never said such a thing was impossible simply that I don't think it has ever been done for whatever reason.

For example, China's first fairly modern solid-fuel ballistic missile was the DF-21/JL-1 (which are one in the same missile) back in the 70's and 80's had two stages and a range of only 1700km in the original models.

However there is one missile I can think of that could give us a hint at what much a missile would look like, the MGM-134 Midgetman ICBM.

This "tiny" ICBM was just 14 meters long, with a diameter of 1.17 meter, weight just 13.6 tonnes, and has three stages. Yet as small as this missile is..It had a range of 8000km! So logically speaking, with the proper solid rocket engine technology, one should be able to design a single stage missile with just a quarter that range.

Pasdar · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2011, 08:33:35 AM »

The US seems to have a lot of 'one size fits all' missiles/military-products. They seem to opt for lower cost due to less different models. Which basically results in higher production numbers (of the same), but also results in overkill in many cases. Therefore basically ends up being more expensive. Then again, I don't think the U.S. has much option, most of its targets are very far.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2011, 06:52:49 PM »

Well, to be blunt, US ballistic missile development is something of an enigma.

For one, the only active long range missile program is the Trident SLBM since we have not designed a new ICBM since the MGM-134 Midgetman (which was never produced sadly). Even worse, the only land-based ICBMs the US has today are the relatively ancient LGM-30 Minuteman missiles which are at least 34 years old and are Silo-based only. The newer Peacekeeper ICBM was designed to supplement it but for some idiotic reason were destroyed in 2005 in favor of keeping the older Minuteman. The Midgetman was designed to be the first trully mobile American ICBM on a similar level as Russian ICBMs like the Topol (though smaller) but never made it past the testing phase. The US simply doesn't feel land-based ICBMs are a priority anymore and focus more on the SLBMs (which does have some logic to it).