IRAN'S powerful missiles

khatar

New Member
Hello.iran is one of the 10 powerful countries in misslile field in the world.if you want to know more about that.you can come here.
no external forum links
thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jgarbuz

New Member
Yes, I would like to know more about Iran's missile capabilities

Hello.iran is one of the 10 powerful countries in misslile field in the world.if you want to know more about that.you can come here.
no external forum links
thank you
I would like to know the answer to a few questions, if you can answer:

1. How many heavy missiles does Iran have capable of hitting Israel?

2. How accurate are they?

3. What size payloads (in kilograms or lbs.) can they carry?

4. How many minutes does it take for a missile to hit Israel from Iran?

5. Do you think they can knock out Israeli runways, military bases, and missile installations?

If you know the answer to this or any other related questions, I'd love to know.

Thank you.
 

khatar

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Iran

Admin:

Text deleted. Unacceptable content

You need to read the Forum Rules before posting again

1st Warning
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bergerpollm

New Member
The Israelis would absolutely obliterate the weapons with their arrow Anti-Ballistic Missiles. [Mod Edit: Text deleted, as Taiwanese weapons are not a subject of this thread]. So, essentially, bad! :gun
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jgarbuz

New Member
The Israelis would absolutely obliterate the weapons with their arrow Anti-Ballistic Missiles [Mod Edit: Text deleted, as Taiwanese weapons are not a subject of this thread]. So, essentially, bad! :gun
I am familiar with the Arrow ABM program. I wish you were right, but no ABM system can overcome barrages of THOUSANDS of cheap ballistic missiles that can hit Israel in 6 minutes. the Iranian strategy, unfortunately, is a good one, from their POV. What Israel needs is a second strike capability of more submarines with SLBMs.The Iranians must be made sure that no matter what they do, even if they strike every square inch inside Israel, that they will be destroyed by Israeli missiles from under the sea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

khatar

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
The Israelis would absolutely obliterate the weapons with their arrow Anti-Ballistic Missiles [Mod Edit: Text deleted, as Taiwanese weapons are not a subject of this thread]. So, essentially, bad! :gun
Israel could not do anything to HEZBOLLAH small missiles.Iran new missile SEJIL 2 is invisible.arrow or any other system can do nothing against it.Iran has SHAHAB 3,SHAB 2,SHAHAB 1,ZELZAL,NAZEAT,SEJIL 1,SEJIL 2 and the other missiles.IRAN has more missiles than what you can imagine :D
you can not forget the missiles that Iran has not shown.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BK101

New Member
Israel could not do anything to HEZBOLLAH small missiles.Iran new missile SEJIL 2 is invisible.arrow or any other system can do nothing against it.Iran has SHAHAB 3,SHAB 2,SHAHAB 1,ZELZAL,NAZEAT,SEJIL 1,SEJIL 2 and the other missiles.IRAN has more missiles than what you can imagine :D
you can not forget the missiles that Iran has not shown.:)
I've been around quite a few defense forums, and the one thing I have always come across are claims that Iran possesses invisible fighters, subs, ships, torpedoes, tanks, and now missiles. Shoot.........I'm starting to wonder if Iran’s technology is so advanced, they can make their entire country invisible!!!:rolleyes:

I would love to see proof! And not doctored up pictures either....
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
There needs to be a marked improvement in the quality of content in this thread if it's going to stay open...
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
I've been around quite a few defense forums, and the one thing I have always come across are claims that Iran possesses invisible fighters, subs, ships, torpedoes, tanks, and now missiles. Shoot.........I'm starting to wonder if Iran’s technology is so advanced, they can make their entire country invisible!!!:rolleyes:

I would love to see proof! And not doctored up pictures either....
Invisibility = Non Existent
--------------


Iran does not have any high tech weapon (period). But what ever it has can overwhelm Israel if launched in mass numbers. Thus Iranian strategy is quantitative against Israel's qualitative edge. & no BMD System is mature enough to counter large number of incoming missiles of different ranges and types (i.e. ballistic+cruise).

Submarine based 2nd strike capability is an effective deterrent but the type of regimes in Israel and Iran we cannot be too sure of that. Both take the conflict to brinkmanship - which is suicidal.
 

khatar

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Iran

Invisibility = Non Existent
--------------


Iran does not have any high tech weapon (period). But what ever it has can overwhelm Israel if launched in mass numbers. Thus Iranian strategy is quantitative against Israel's qualitative edge. & no BMD System is mature enough to counter large number of incoming missiles of different ranges and types (i.e. ballistic+cruise).

Submarine based 2nd strike capability is an effective deterrent but the type of regimes in Israel and Iran we cannot be too sure of that. Both take the conflict to brinkmanship - which is suicidal.
Iran is not what your governments show you in your TV.A poor country.A weak country.They show you something wrong.you can be sure if Iran does not have a good military It has been attacked by USA and Israel very long ago...
[Mod Edit: Text deleted. Please note that Hezbollah and the 2006 conflict is not a subject of this thread. Trolling and other childish behaviour is not welcomed.]
after that Syria and Iran.but all of that was a bad mistake.My English is not very good.Excuse me for that

2nd Warning - and to remember to read the forum rules. Please note that it is against DT forum rules to encourage or support terrorism/terrorist activity in your posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jgarbuz

New Member
SABRE said:
Iran does not have any high tech weapon (period). But what ever it has can overwhelm Israel if launched in mass numbers. Thus Iranian strategy is quantitative against Israel's qualitative edge. & no BMD System is mature enough to counter large number of incoming missiles of different ranges and types (i.e. ballistic+cruise).

Submarine based 2nd strike capability is an effective deterrent but the type of regimes in Israel and Iran we cannot be too sure of that. Both take the conflict to brinkmanship - which is suicidal.
I full concur with your analysis, and indeed has been my opinion for quite some time now. The Iranian strategy of producing huge volumes of relatively inexpensive IRBMs to overwhelm Israeli defenses is a good one from their POV.

And I also agree that Israel has to quickly develop a Triad to include more submarines -with SLMBs like the Trident for assured MAD if Iran is that mad. And there is no present BDM solution to counter an overwhelming deluge of missiles.

And you are right to imply that this is not an ideological conflict, as with materialistic, life-loving capitalism versus communism. Underneath it all this is a theological religious war where Islam cannot countenance a Jewish state, with all the apocalyptic and messianic undertones and overtones. This is the scenario for the Armageddon. And I see no peaceful solution in sight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grim901

New Member
First off, why this thread is still open despite at least 50% of posts having to be altered or deleted by mods is beyond me. From the start it should have been clear that one person has succumbed to propoganda and is out to troll.

Anyway, on topic. I'd agree with Sabre's analysis, but the idea of trying to develop and SLBM and assoicated SSBN may not be a good idea. These are single purpose vessels and weapons that would mean Israel entirely dropping the premise of ambiguity over nuclear weapons. What the repurcussions for that would be are anyones guess, but I don't see many positive outcomes. And also, how exactly are Israel supposed to afford these? They are by far the most expensive thing that major global powers have in their defence budgets (US could well struggle to afford their replacements for Ohio, Britain has had to fight tooth and nail to keep theirs alive, the Russians are having problems at every turn). The only way for Israel to afford this would be for the US to openly help and either supply cash for R&D or allow Israel into a similar agreement as the UK, which could well be the final nail in the coffin for US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The Israelis already have a fairly decent deterrent in a their SLCM's, which certianly can't be countered until/if Iran ever manages to get S300's, and then it still has ground launched missiles which I suspect could be launched before Iranian missiles struck now that they can detect them at launch thanks to the US X-band.
 

BK101

New Member
Iran is not what your governments show you in your TV.A poor country.A weak country.They show you something wrong.you can be sure if Iran does not have a good military It has been attacked by USA and Israel very long ago...
[Mod Edit: Text deleted. Please note that Hezbollah and the 2006 conflict is not a subject of this thread. Trolling and other childish behaviour is not welcomed.]
after that Syria and Iran.but all of that was a bad mistake.My English is not very good.Excuse me for that

2nd Warning - and to remember to read the forum rules. Please note that it is against DT forum rules to encourage or support terrorism/terrorist activity in your posts.
The news that I watch does not show a poor Iran at all. I see a country with a rich heritage and culture with very beautiful people. The problem with what you see on the news is State run media showing technology that Iran doesn't possess,
Iran does have many medium and short range ballistic missiles, but they will only have any effect with a massive strike. Even then, the consequences of that would be devastating for Iran.
Thats just my humble opinion.

Cheers
 

jgarbuz

New Member
Anyway, on topic. I'd agree with Sabre's analysis, but the idea of trying to develop and SLBM and assoicated SSBN may not be a good idea. These are single purpose vessels and weapons that would mean Israel entirely dropping the premise of ambiguity over nuclear weapons. What the repurcussions for that would be are anyones guess, but I don't see many positive outcomes. And also, how exactly are Israel supposed to afford these? They are by far the most expensive thing that major global powers have in their defence budgets (US could well struggle to afford their replacements for Ohio, Britain has had to fight tooth and nail to keep theirs alive, the Russians are having problems at every turn). The only way for Israel to afford this would be for the US to openly help and either supply cash for R&D or allow Israel into a similar agreement as the UK, which could well be the final nail in the coffin for US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The Israelis already have a fairly decent deterrent in a their SLCM's, which certianly can't be countered until/if Iran ever manages to get S300's, and then it still has ground launched missiles which I suspect could be launched before Iranian missiles struck now that they can detect them at launch thanks to the US X-band.
I fully agree that the acquisition of submarines costing about $4 billion per copy fitted out with some SLBM version of the Jericho would be expensive and could jeopardize Israel's posture of nuclear ambiguity, but the fact is that massive quantities of Iranian missiles could carpet bomb most of the tiny Israeli land mass within 6 minutes, destroying missile bases, runways and the like crippling Israel's ability to retaliate. But it think it is preferable to acquiring more fifth generation aircraft now approaching $200 million per copy that might not be able to get off the runway or successfully reach Iran even if they do. So I would rather Israel get 1 such sub per year than 20 new vulnerable aircraft per year. The X-band should see the Iranian missiles launch, but that only leaves 6 minutes of decision-making time. Israeli subs in the Mediterranean that the Iranians cannot see and destroy would have to make them think twice about launching in the first place. That's my theory at least.
 

SURB

Member
Iran could fire ‘hundreds’ of missiles on Europe: Gates

Washington—US intelligence has shown Iran could launch an attack against Europe with ‘scores or hundreds’ of missiles, prompting major changes to US missile defenses, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said.

President Barack Obama in September cited a mounting danger from Iran’s arsenal of short and medium-range missiles when he announced an overhaul of US missile defense plans.

The new program, called the “phased adaptive approach,” uses sea and land-based interceptors to protect Nato allies in the region, instead of mainly larger weapons designed to counter long-range missiles.

“One of the elements of the intelligence that contributed to the decision on the phased adaptive array was the realization that if Iran were actually to launch a missile attack on Europe, it wouldn’t be just one or two missiles or a handful,” Gates told a senate hearing.

“It would more likely be a salvo kind of attack, where you would be dealing potentially with scores or even hundreds of missiles.

“Top US generals have said the new anti-missile system was meant to guard against a potential salvo of missiles from states such as Iran or North Korea.Gates made the comment when asked by Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss if he supported deploying improved missile defenses, including plans for an upgraded SM-3 missile by 2020, even if Russia objected.

Gates said he backed the 10-year plan, despite possible resistance from Moscow, saying the new missile defenses “would give us the ability to protect our troops, our bases, our facilities and our allies in Europe.” Gates, along with other top deputies in the Obama administration, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to argue for ratification of a new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, trying to reassure Republican lawmakers the agreement posed no threat to the missile defense program.—Newswire

Iran is causing a severe headache.;)
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
And I also agree that Israel has to quickly develop a Triad to include more submarines -with SLMBs like the Trident for assured MAD if Iran is that mad. And there is no present BDM solution to counter an overwhelming deluge of missiles.
There was a catch here and Grim901 caught it. I used the phrase "submarine based 2nd strike capability" instead of "SLBM" because Israel would then loose its nuclear ambiguity. The best alternative for Israel is to have conventional submarine capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads - something Israel has already achieved.

And you are right to imply that this is not an ideological conflict, as with materialistic, life-loving capitalism versus communism. Underneath it all this is a theological religious war where Islam cannot countenance a Jewish state, with all the apocalyptic and messianic undertones and overtones. This is the scenario for the Armageddon. And I see no peaceful solution in sight.
I don't want to start religious debate here but it is all a cover to garner public support. Underneath it all is dirty politics. Before the creation of Israel Muslims and Jews had found themselves more comfortable with each other then anyone else.
 
Well, at least we deployed a company sized element into the Polish-border town of Morag.

Not too relevant, but could intercept any Iranian missile bombardments if they get within 70km.
 

Mercurius

New Member
An international team of researchers from the International Institute for Strategic Studies has just completed a lengthy and detailed study of Iran’s ballistic missile programmes. The conclusions it draws don’t match the hyperbole of the title of this thread. In its 140-page report, the IISS concluded that:

* Iran has surpassed North Korea in most aspects of ballistic-missile technology, but is still dependant on N Korea for some hardware.

* Future progress may still depend on significant foreign support is areas such as key materials, equipment, and components.

* Iran will have to rely on the engine technology in its possession today to power its future liquid-propellant missiles and space launch vehicles.

* Iran knows the basics of design and production of solid-propellant motors larger than those of Sejil 2, but a production programme (assuming that suitable manufacturing equipment is available) will involve “significant challenges”.

* The military usefulness of Iran’s current ballistic missile force is severely limited by its very poor accuracy. If fired against cities, Shahab 3 and Ghadr 1 would be of limited effectiveness, probably causing less than a few hundred casualties. Missiles are unable to ensure the destruction of a single high-priority point target, and even if targeted against area targets such as seaports and airports would probably be incapable of shutting down critical military activities even if chemical or biological payloads were used.

* Attempts to import better inertial guidance or GPS technology to enhance missile accuracy would produce only modest accuracy improvements unless Iran could develop precise thrust-termination systems or post-boost control systems. The best likely accuracy improvements would not make conventional-warhead missiles militarily effective.

* Fitted with such a first-generation nuclear payload, the Ghadr 1 may not be able to reach targets in Israel unless fired from locations very close to the Iraq/Iran border that would make it vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes.

* Missiles capable of striking Western Europe are unlikely to see service until 2014 or 2015, while ICBMs are about a decade away. Missiles is this performance class would probably weigh more than 100 tons and have to be deployed in fixed silos.


I am familiar with the Arrow ABM program. I wish you were right, but no ABM system can overcome barrages of THOUSANDS of cheap ballistic missiles that can hit Israel in 6 minutes.
There is no way that any country’s missile industry could create a cheap ballistic missile with the range you are suggesting. Long range comes expensive! And the creation of thousands of such missiles in the short term is well beyond Iran’s current and likely future industrial capability.

I’ve visited an Arrow battery and been briefed on its capabilities. According to a senior programme official, it was designed to deal with Shahab-3 class missiles. Further improvements are already in hand in the form of the Arrow improvement programme and the new Arrow 3.


Israel could not do anything to HEZBOLLAH small missiles)
That’s true - Israel’s early ABM work was focussed on long-range threats rather than tactical rockets. But the situation will change as the Iron Dome system enters service in growing numbers. The first battery is about to be come operational, and one of its launchers was displayed at last week’s Eurosatory exhibition in France.
 

AMERICANMAN

Banned Member
I am familiar with the Arrow ABM program. I wish you were right, but no ABM system can overcome barrages of THOUSANDS of cheap ballistic missiles that can hit Israel in 6 minutes. the Iranian strategy, unfortunately, is a good one, from their POV. What Israel needs is a second strike capability of more submarines with SLBMs.The Iranians must be made sure that no matter what they do, even if they strike every square inch inside Israel, that they will be destroyed by Israeli missiles from under the sea.
Most missiles carry a 2000 lb warhead or less, it would take about 3000 missiles to take out one square mile of land. You do the math. For a number of reasons I doubt if Iran has all that many accurate operational missiles.. If the missles have nukes, then its a differant ballgame.
 

justone

Banned Member
There was a catch here and Grim901 caught it. I used the phrase "submarine based 2nd strike capability" instead of "SLBM" because Israel would then loose its nuclear ambiguity. The best alternative for Israel is to have conventional submarine capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads - something Israel has already achieved.



I don't want to start religious debate here but it is all a cover to garner public support. Underneath it all is dirty politics. Before the creation of Israel Muslims and Jews had found themselves more comfortable with each other then anyone else.
Yes they do have this and other secrets we dont know about. I will agree with you on that "Before the creation of Israel Muslims and Jews had found themselves more comfortable with each other then anyone else". It's been like that for over 2 centuries until European jews came in the 1940's
 
Top