Iran's ballistic missile systems were equipped with versatile camouflage
This is a discussion on Iran's ballistic missile systems were equipped with versatile camouflage within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; hoo69
Iran's ballistic missile system to counter multi-purpose camouflage tricks of the enemy, were equipped.
East News Agency, East News ...
Iran's ballistic missile systems were equipped with versatile camouflage
hoo69
Iran's ballistic missile system to counter multi-purpose camouflage tricks of the enemy, were equipped.
East News Agency, East News analysis: Iran's ballistic missile systems were equipped with multi-purpose camouflage
The Department of Defense and Security Orient News, according to the enemies of Iran advances in electronic warfare systems such as being given electro-magnetic bombs, Iranian experts managed to design and build systems to deal with this action and features were the enemy.
Considering the missile can be preserved in different conditions and provide the possibility of multiple and diverse crowd, despite doing a variety of tactics by the enemy threat conditions, one of the most important strategies is the Iranian armed forces.
Therefore and to counter enemy actions in this field Jngal, Iranian defense experts, a camouflage net with a few important features were produced. The camouflage net in addition to missiles, launchers and other belongings of missile systems from the risk of being seen by enemy aircraft, satellites and reserves, the ability to deal with acts of war the enemy has the electronics.
Iranian missile systems equipped with the innovative camouflage net, can respond to any threat at any moment and in all conditions will exist.
I like to know how will this help Iranian to conceal it missiles? I remember during Desert Storm when I was with the 101st Airborne the problem with hunting scud missiles are you have dunnie missiles out there and mobile missile that are on the go.
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 78
Threads:
Yep invisiable to everything incl the naked eyes, you need your Jngal approved special safey glasses that are bio encoded so you cant even let someone else use them to see it, kind of like North Koreas special invisiable cell phone that Kim was using to order / talk directly to his soccer coach in the last world cup that Kim designed himself but that the coach wasnt paying close enough attention when they lost their match.
Funny what people will believe when their Gov't controls everything they read and or see. (I typed out a long rant but then after thinking about it a bit I'm not going to post it as it does nothing to add to the thread.)
We designed this to be invisiable to all current and future forms of detection that could possiably be used against us. Hmm interesting idea but since I dont have those glasses I can't even say we will see since your blocking all the future stuff also.
Funny what people will believe when their Gov't controls everything they read and or see. (I typed out a long rant but then after thinking about it a bit I'm not going to post it as it does nothing to add to the thread.)
Actually it is unlikely that many of the Iranian people believe any of these pronouncements. They after all, have more experience with their government than we do. No the real target is the Main Stream Media [MSM], who understand very little about anything and nothing about military matters, but are experts on anything everything, especially military matters and technology.
The MSM laps it up and trumpets how any actions taken against Iran (or Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.) will inevitably end in a disastrous defeat for the attackers.
Actually it is unlikely that many of the Iranian people believe any of these pronouncements. They after all, have more experience with their government than we do. No the real target is the Main Stream Media [MSM], who understand very little about anything and nothing about military matters, but are experts on anything everything, especially military matters and technology.
The MSM laps it up and trumpets how any actions taken against Iran (or Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc.) will inevitably end in a disastrous defeat for the attackers.
I concur the americans suffered major defeat in iraq and afganistan along with some other countries and to what end? Iran is more powerful and well equiped compared to these 2 countries, not to mention their capability of producing advanced weapon by their own (although its been reverse enginereed from others) iran may develop their own wmd if they were threthned.
I concur the americans suffered major defeat in iraq and afganistan along with some other countries and to what end? Iran is more powerful and well equiped compared to these 2 countries, not to mention their capability of producing advanced weapon by their own (although its been reverse enginereed from others) iran may develop their own wmd if they were threthned.
The U.S. did not suffer defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not that powerful it has weapons from two decades ago. I will agreed with on the WMD thing. If the fight going be on the ground in Iran that a different story.
The U.S. did not suffer defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not that powerful it has weapons from two decades ago. I will agreed with on the WMD thing. If the fight going be on the ground in Iran that a different story.
Remember, the key of the quick and decisive victory by the us over iraq and afganistan is mostly because of these 2 countries are in bad shape. Afgan were fighting the soviets and at the end of it they were pretty messed up, iraq suffered great losses after the iran iraq war (the whirlwind war or so saddam call it) although they still have many troops with them and military equipment they suffered huge debt to many countries in the iran iraq war which mean their ability to import advanced weaponfrom another country was difficult. And not to mention the iraqis were poorly trained and many of them were conscript who doesn't even got what it takes to fight. Iran now suffer from the us sanction on them, i agree about some (not most) of their military equipment were over 2 decades old but they have create an alternative for their needs by creating their own or upgraiding their military equipment.
I concur the americans suffered major defeat in iraq and afganistan along with some other countries and to what end? Iran is more powerful and well equiped compared to these 2 countries, not to mention their capability of producing advanced weapon by their own (although its been reverse enginereed from others) iran may develop their own wmd if they were threthned.
I guess defeat depends on your definition of victory. The USA does not want colonies, they are not worth the effort, and can be hard to get rid of (i.e. Puerto Rico). Plans for leaving existed for both before the 1st boot hit the ground. Unfortunately the locals have more guts than brains. If they had been smart they would have waited a year for the USA to leave, then gone back to their games, instead they forced the USA to get involved.
In Iraq there was at least a partially functional nation-state to work start from, so the USA has succeeded enough to finish turning over to them next year. The Saddam/Sunni/al-Qaeda group exists mostly in the press. The Shia fundamentalists, centered around Muqtada al-Sadr is no longer capable of physically overthrowing the government. The biggest threats to Iraqi central government are themselves, as the public appears to becoming disgusted with factional politics, and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north who, with a functional government and far less violence have a growing economy, are making them look even worse by comparison.
Afghanistan is completely different. The only time they ever had something approaching a national government was the Taliban, and their policies (revenge killings and genocide are so tempting) are not acceptable. Then there is the problem of the perfidy of America’s so-called ally Pakistan. This one is hard to call, and depends on factors like how long it takes things to come to a head in Pakistan, the corruption of the Karzai government, and the developing and maintaining supply lines through the former Russian states. Obama’s promise to pull the troops out by some artificial deadline are on par with his promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- it may play well to a portion of his political base, but would doom his administration and party if he actually went through with it. Only if the Taliban (and the ISI) drops its refusal to negotiatons (all past negotiating parties have turned out to be with former members under sentence of death or con men) does an American withdrawal appear politically feasible. However, the trends definitely are against the Taliban, even if it takes another decade to finish.
The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.
I guess defeat depends on your definition of victory. The USA does not want colonies, they are not worth the effort, and can be hard to get rid of (i.e. Puerto Rico). Plans for leaving existed for both before the 1st boot hit the ground. Unfortunately the locals have more guts than brains. If they had been smart they would have waited a year for the USA to leave, then gone back to their games, instead they forced the USA to get involved.
In Iraq there was at least a partially functional nation-state to work start from, so the USA has succeeded enough to finish turning over to them next year. The Saddam/Sunni/al-Qaeda group exists mostly in the press. The Shia fundamentalists, centered around Muqtada al-Sadr is no longer capable of physically overthrowing the government. The biggest threats to Iraqi central government are themselves, as the public appears to becoming disgusted with factional politics, and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north who, with a functional government and far less violence have a growing economy, are making them look even worse by comparison.
Afghanistan is completely different. The only time they ever had something approaching a national government was the Taliban, and their policies (revenge killings and genocide are so tempting) are not acceptable. Then there is the problem of the perfidy of America’s so-called ally Pakistan. This one is hard to call, and depends on factors like how long it takes things to come to a head in Pakistan, the corruption of the Karzai government, and the developing and maintaining supply lines through the former Russian states. Obama’s promise to pull the troops out by some artificial deadline are on par with his promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- it may play well to a portion of his political base, but would doom his administration and party if he actually went through with it. Only if the Taliban (and the ISI) drops its refusal to negotiatons (all past negotiating parties have turned out to be with former members under sentence of death or con men) does an American withdrawal appear politically feasible. However, the trends definitely are against the Taliban, even if it takes another decade to finish.
The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.
You know' it's ironic how both iraq and afganistan end up like this. Iraq, because of their dictator saddam hussein decided to invade iran end up with nothing except losses and huge international debt that will lead iraq to the invasion of kuwait and destroy their country. What's more ironic is afganistan, after being invaded by soviets whom they were fighting now have to do the same to their former allies the us. Sad.
The big myth is that the USA lost militarily in Vietnam, they did not. The USA had lost the political will to keep going unless there were no alternatives. Negotiations on the Paris Peace Accords were already underway, so when North Vietnam made some concessions the USA agreed, signed, and withdrew their troops. North Vietnam then launched a new invasion 2 years after the USA had finished the withdrawal.
The US did lose in vietnam, killing more people doesnt equal a win. Completing there objectives does and they failed majorly.
And 2 years later? The NVA where attacking as the US where evacuating.
The US did lose in vietnam, killing more people doesnt equal a win. Completing there objectives does and they failed majorly.
And 2 years later? The NVA where attacking as the US where evacuating.
Militarily the US had made South Vietnam strong enough to fight the guerilla war on their own. It was frustration from this that lead to North Vietnam mounting an actual cross-border invasion with regular forces 2 years later.
The evacuation 2 years later was of State Department personnel and their Marine guards from the US Embassy. No US combat units were involved in the fighting or evacuated. The State Department was defeated, not the military. It was still a defeat for the US, but it was not a military defeat.
If the Taliban hopes to achieve something similar to Vietnam they need to negotiate, that will allow the State Department to generate a treaty to supply the political cover so that the politicians can pull the troops out. Then wait a couple of years and take over.
Thinking further on this, Mullah Omar may not feel that, given the nature of the Taliban as a collection of tribal war bands, he can hold it together for a year or more without the promise of money and looting. This may explain why he refuses to negotiate.
Militarily the US had made South Vietnam strong enough to fight the guerilla war on their own. It was frustration from this that lead to North Vietnam mounting an actual cross-border invasion with regular forces 2 years later.
The evacuation 2 years later was of State Department personnel and their Marine guards from the US Embassy. No US combat units were involved in the fighting or evacuated. The State Department was defeated, not the military. It was still a defeat for the US, but it was not a military defeat.
If the Taliban hopes to achieve something similar to Vietnam they need to negotiate, that will allow the State Department to generate a treaty to supply the political cover so that the politicians can pull the troops out. Then wait a couple of years and take over.
Thinking further on this, Mullah Omar may not feel that, given the nature of the Taliban as a collection of tribal war bands, he can hold it together for a year or more without the promise of money and looting. This may explain why he refuses to negotiate.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam but what you said about a political cover I agree with you. The Taliban is getting destroyed by SF/CIA operative. One thing the US did correct was to go into Afghanistan with SF and that was the difference in this war. But the part of them taking over when the US leave is not going to happen lost to many fighters. But a civil war could happen.
