|
|
Iran Develops system to distract missiles
By: on: 11.02.2010 [03:14 ] (1763 reads)
|
(1776 bytes) [nc]
|
|
Iran Develops system to distract missiles
A senior Iranian commander has announced that the country has developed a new system to distract missiles.
Deputy Commander of Iran's Air Force Gen. Seyyed Mohammad Alavi said that the system prevents missiles from hitting their targets.
He stated that Iran's Air Force has made great achievements in the production of smart ammunition and long-range weapons.
Alavi noted that Iran will mass-produce the new weapons and ammunition to boost its deterrence.
Earlier in February, the Air Force announced that it has successfully tested the prototype of its first domestically-built stealth drone.
"The drone, due to its physical attributes and the material used in its body, cannot be detected by any radar," Air Force Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh said.
submitted by Iranian-Shi'ite
Distracting missiles. I wonder how that is done. I'm guessing that it uses an electromagnetic pulse perhaps.
From wikipedia:
Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) is an electromagnetic pulse generated without use of nuclear weapons. There are a number of devices that can achieve this objective, ranging from a large low-inductance capacitor bank discharged into a single-loop antenna or a microwave generator to an explosively pumped flux compression generator. To achieve the frequency characteristics of the pulse needed for optimal coupling into the target, wave-shaping circuits and/or microwave generators are added between the pulse source and the antenna. A vacuum tube particularly suitable for microwave conversion of high energy pulses is the vircator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
Any opinions on this will be appreciated.
by cosmo on 11.02.2010 [15:21 ]
|
|
|
The ziowest and their puppets led by the zioentity have to watch their ziotongues and zioactions.
|
by cosmo on 11.02.2010 [15:38 ]
|
|
|
I think one can think of a few alterantives of the operative mode but its unnecessary to bring such things to the attention of zios.
Let them figure things on their own.
|
by Syrian on 11.02.2010 [16:51 ]
|
|
|
But its easy to jam GPS, Syria for example, has GPS jammers all over the place so JDAMs won't work at all.
Some missiles operate by optical recognition of terrain so there is no way to jam them, you have to shoot them down if possible. These missiles are pretty expensive and heavy though, I'm not sure if the USAF still produces them. You can't do this on a computer, you have to use some really fancy tricks with Fourier optics once you're near your target to get a lock.
Some missiles rely on a kind of compass measurement, so some large magnetic fields can totally throw them off. These are the cheapest kind of missiles though and unlikely to be employed by the USAF or Navy.
|
by Syrian on 11.02.2010 [16:54 ]
|
|
|
Its hilarious how Iran can manufacture these but Russia cannot and must buy them from israHell.
Then, on the other thread, a bunch of illiterates assume that Iranian arms are a joke. Maybe 15 years ago, but times have changed. They should see some of the arms coming out of China, they share a lot of their information with Iran.
|
by Deathtodubya on 11.02.2010 [17:08 ]
|
|
|
remark. Well I feel sorry for your delusions but Iranian weapons are a joke. Rusting remnants of the Shah's army and a handful of reverse engineed weapons based on 1970's technology are not exactly first rate.
China shares technology only of it's old rubbish.
Iran is though good at 'Stealth' weapons though. ie. they are invisible to everyone, including the enemy:)
|
by shade on 11.02.2010 [17:11 ]
|
|
|
there are several ways of distracting missiles
some are possible to distract some not
if it has passive navigation system its hard to distract, but such missiles are not precise by default.
so my uneducated guess would be several layers of defense
probably dumb radar emission boxes so anti radar missiles go after them, also maybe some "laser light show" on the ground so enemy gets hard time painting the target with laser while its painted like crazy in all directions, and certainly high energy jammers
and my absolute favourite : models!
like that what serbs "sold" to NATO bombers - a wooden bridge across the field (they were so stupid to bomb it while it was apparent there was no river beneath it)
or (i really dont know if this is true) open microwave ovens near woods
- wooosh - 100000+ $ missile vs 100$ microwave ... LOL!
|
by Deathtodubya on 11.02.2010 [17:12 ]
|
|
|
is starting serial production of some Stealth fighter, Stealth submarine, Stealth Aircraft carrier, stealth mech, ICBM's, improved S-300 missiles etc.
If they were building all this wondrous equipment then why are they still begging the Russians for years to sell them the S-300 when it seems that Iran already has several systems in serial production far better?
|
by Deathtodubya on 11.02.2010 [17:17 ]
|
|
|
The Serbs were fantastic with their camo and 'low tech' counter system against cruise missiles, infra red, thermal imaging and guided bombs.
They did use microwave ovens, they also lit fires among mock ups of armoured vehicles to give them a heat signature. They also painted squares and other shapes of varying colour near bridges and things as they rightly assumed after examining the guidance system of cruise missiles that such things tend to confuse the image recognising software.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [17:28 ]
|
|
|
There are some missiles that zero in on radar. I think they're called RAM.
Maybe these "distractor missiles" give off the type of radar info that the RAM missiles look for.
What do you think?
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [17:33 ]
|
|
|
"If they were building all this wondrous equipment then why are they still begging the Russians for years to sell them the S-300 "
The more advanced version of the S-300 is still underway. By the time it is designed, developed, prototyped, and produced, it may be a while.
When Iran says it is manufacturing, I don't think it means in production. There may be a translation issue here.
Even when Iran does start producing their version of the S-300, it will time to build stock piles.
That's why it is a good idea for Iran to purchase the actual Russian S-300 in addition to developing its own.
|
by eureka on 11.02.2010 [17:38 ]
|
|
|
You may very well be correct, but on the other hand you could be wrong. If Iran was not being given some kind of respect by America, then tell me why that all these years they have been talking about punishing Iran but up to now, only covert action has been taken?
And this is speaking in the context of America bombing Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Americans rush in to bomb all these 'weak' nations but up to this minute, only talk on Iran? Is this a coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.
I also want to point you in the direction that Iran should not be taken lightly. Their history far surpasses western history and remember, they are not stupid. They didn't become a force to be reckoned with just by chance. Also take your mind to the superiority of the American military against the Afghani Taleban and the Iraqi Resistance; and recognize that up to now, neither of these nations are pacified in accordance with american terminology.
America still have to maintain military bases and personnel in these countries despite all the shock and awe bombing that was undertaken. I am putting it to you that the Americans cannot take what they dish out and the minute that they attack a country who is capable of defending themselves, you are going to see who the real men are.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [17:43 ]
|
|
|
You can tell they are bluffing as it seems that every day Iran is starting serial production of some stealth fighter . . . .
The Shafaq is in production already?
It was slated for 2008, but I thought it had not yet started mass production other than some prototypes.
Anyways, it is actually a semi-stealth, sub-sonic aircraft. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [17:45 ]
|
|
|
"And this is speaking in the context of America bombing Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan."
Yes, and there was Libya under Reagan, and Panama under George the elder.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [17:49 ]
|
|
|
quote:
"r...everse engineed weapons based on 1970's technology are not exactly first rate. "
Iran has been covertly purchasing technology from Germany, the USA, and other countries while overtly getting help from Russia and China.
Also,
Don't you think Chavez let Iranian engineers look under the hood of the F-16?
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [17:51 ]
|
|
|
google that for Iran.
|
by Syrian on 11.02.2010 [18:35 ]
|
|
|
You're delusional not only about Iran's capabilities but America's image! You drank the kool aid! You're completely illiterate now.
Why not go sign up, as a local or green card soldier?
|
by Syrian on 11.02.2010 [18:44 ]
|
|
|
Do not understand the state of technology that enables the rapid and simple production of effective armaments. Indeed, the same production lines that create steel for car parts and spare parts for aircrafts can be used to manufacture arms.
Iran has heavy industries, which is why it is building nuclear power plants. Once they are up and running they can scale production well and beyond their current capacity.
Russians are excellent at flight dynamics and plasma physics — this is not going to change any time soon. Iran will have a hard time reproducing the capabilities of the S-300, the greatest AA missile launcher on earth. However, it has been a long time since its release so it not entirely unreasonable that work on this project can start.
The people claiming Iranian arms are rubbish are not just illiterate — they're completely irrational. There has been incredibly little information on their arms production bar their military games. Where are people getting this information from? The israeli press? Hahahaha...
By the way, I choose the word illiterate because its much less insulting than deluded. But in the above post I used both since you repeated it without producing the infomation you seem to have hullucinated.
|
by Syrian on 11.02.2010 [18:53 ]
|
|
|
A lot of people think modern weapons are some kind of magic. Its really amusing seeing people argue about the capabilities of various armaments when technology has brought everything closer together. In mechanics, its all about tight tolerances. In chemistry, its all about reactor efficency, in photolithography the resolution, etc.
They all operate on basic principles, with their performance optimised by engineers using various hidden tricks. These tricks are worked out through simulations, trials and most importantly TIME.
Sometimes it is much cheaper to buy the best available weapons than produce them yourselves — this is the case with the S-300. It will cost Iran a lot more money to develop it than getting it from Russia (we still don't know if they're faking the failure of delivery, but the fact that Iran has released these announcements makes that scenario less likely).
|
by Deathtodubya on 11.02.2010 [20:30 ]
|
|
|
blind for a week if Iran sends a carrier to the bottom, but you've got to face the facts that the USan vampires spend more on weapons than the rest of the world combined and have done so for the last 30 years or so. Of course much of it is wasted but the sheer amount has meant that the scum have a sheer numbers advantage when it comes to quality military hardware. Russians and others may have better equipment in many areas but it's in pitifully short supply, and won't make a rats arse bit of difference. In WW2 the Germans had the best weapons, but so what? Others had decent weapons, but with a 20 to 1 numerical advantage, the German superweapons were still blown away. Numbers have their own quality as a general once said, and no one has vast numbers of decent if aging weaponry as the US murderers do.
I'd wager too that any weapon that Iran is producing is more like some american aircraft from the 1970's. That's not a criticism, it's a fact given the capabilities of Iran at this time. Europeans had to spend 1000 times more than Iran just to build the Eurofighter and it's barely current technology, so what could a developing industrial power like Iran do? They've come a long way in a very short time, but it will be a while yet before they can build something big on a par with the skanks.
On the other hand, it's easier to make smaller, simpler equipment like missiles and rockets, and that's where Iran really needs to focus on. No point wasting money on aircraft or tanks.
|
by Deathtodubya on 11.02.2010 [20:40 ]
|
|
|
for martyrdom operations in the Golan. The Zionazis will have you for breakfast like they've done with Syria in every fucking war. I suppose if you were around back then you'd still have been speaking some shit about how Israeli US crap is inferior to Syrian and Egyptian weapons and that Syria has death rays that can destroy Zionists with ease. I suppose you also were saying in 1990 that Iraq would sink US carriers with ease, with that bullshit bravado of yours. Well sorry buddy it didn't quite end up the 'mother of all battles' but the 'mother of all routs'.
If you knew anything about Sun Tzu you'd know that underestimating one's enemy and overestimating your own is a cardinal sin.
America doesn't need to show an 'image'. They blasted Iraq in 1991- 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, Serbia in 1999. All invasions and attacks done with minimal losses. THIS IS HOW THE US FIGHTS. Sad but true.
ONLY WHEN OCCUPYING DOES THE US APPEAR TO BE A PAPER TIGER BECAUSE THE HUMAN ELEMENT IS BY FAR THEIR WEAKEST LINK.
I've no doubt that if you put 100000 US infantry in a fight with 100000 Iranian soldiers, then the Iranians would win. The problem is that they don't need to fight like this to achieve their short term aims regarding Iran.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [21:08 ]
|
|
|
While it is true that the USA has been developing its weapons longer than Iran has been developing its weapons, there is the assumption that Iran's only progress is due to internal development.
As I mentioned previously, Iran has been covertly purchasing technology from Germany, and from the USA which has some greedy arms dealers that are willing to illegally sell to Iran, and other countries while overtly getting help from Russia and China.
So, while it is true that the US has been developing its weapons for a longer time, Iran's only progress has not been from development. Also, the material to copy is sometimes modern and sometimes even contemporary.
It is easier for Iran to copy a design (year 2005 item, for instance) than it was for the USA or Germany to develop it in the first place.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 11.02.2010 [21:52 ]
|
|
|
When Israhell hit Syria, the Syrians were using Soviet made weapons, not their own.
When the USA started bombing Iraq, the Iraqis only had a few months to prepare.
When the USA bombed Serbia, the Serbians had no time to prepare.
Iran has been preparing to get bombed by the USA for 22 years (since the USA shot down an Iranian civilian passenger and committed other acts of hostility against Iran).
Iran has been preparing for 22 years. Serbia had no time to prepare. Syria was using Soviet weapons, not their own.
|
by Syrian on 12.02.2010 [03:56 ]
|
|
|
As always, you are emotionally reacting, guessing but not thinking. Rectify this if you want me to respond again. I will not respond to your next post if it contains ANY BULLSHIT WHATSOEVER. I'm just going to laugh at you, like I laugh at retards pretending to be intellectuals.
For example, this bullshit:
>The Zionazis will have you for breakfast like they've done with Syria in every fucking war.
LOL, go f**king read some history.
>America doesn't need to show an 'image'.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You seriously have no idea what happened in Serbia and Iraq, both involving long sanctions. Afghanistan? LOL, they just waltzed in after the taliban ran away from the bombing. Now they're surrounded. Gee, those bombing runs sure are darn useful hick hick hick. Stupid USAns.
Image is everything to the US, that's why they had to finish Iraq in 2003 in the shortest time possible. Even then, they had to bribe their way to a victory and when that didn't happen, use weapons of mass destruction.
>Syria has death rays that can destroy Zionists with ease
Now you're putting words in my mouth, but this is a typical reaction ... of a ZIONAZI.
>I'd wager too that any weapon that Iran is producing is more like some american aircraft from the 1970's.
And I'd wager that you have no idea what you're talking about. As for how much they spent ... READ MY F**ING POST. It is TIME which is most important, investments in manufacturing have happened across the board. Naturally, time in Europe is more expensive. I'm not saying the Iranian aircrafts are superior in any way to European/American aircrafts — its impossible for me to judge since no specs are out. But, according to the small amount of information I've gathered at least one of them has very similar performance to the F/A18, an excellent fighter — introduced in the 80s. Not much has actually happened since the 80s, besides the 70s gave us the F-15, one of the greatest fighter jets of all time. Go back to school.
Really, it may take you a few years to reach the mature level of discussion on this site, but you have to try. Go out and investigate how real wars are conducted. Go educate yourself on manufacturing and technology. The only single compelling fact you've given me, is the numerical advantage — I do not think it is relevant. If america involved it's entire forces in the battle, it would destroy it's image. It would likely kick the battle up a notch by using nuclear or neutron bombs on Iran, if it started to lose.
@IS
We use some weapons we developed ourselves, in most of our aircrafts the avionics have been modified or created from scratch. We still kicked israHell's ass in 1973, a war we initiated. There was some betrayal in 1967, with a high-ranking official (I won't say who people think it is — it will get me into trouble) demanding that the Golan bunker retreat since the enemy was "too strong". Everyone who knew someone in that bunker would tell you they could have EASILY stood their ground. Even though Cohen gave the israHellis all the information they needed, the bunker was simply too fortified. They took the Golan for free, or did they ... we probably won't know until a certain action is taken.
Don't forget that Iraq came out of a long war with Iran and in 2003 was sanctioned for many years.
THIS IS THE FACT: AMERICA WILL NOT TAKE ON A STRONG ENEMY. ALWAYS A WEAKENED ONE.
|
by Syrian on 12.02.2010 [04:03 ]
|
|
|
I read the rest of your post and you raise excellent points, this is why military technology has converged so quickly. It's very easy to obtain certain parts and due to manufacturing abilities, easy to re-engineer and produce them independently.
The literature is open, most engineering problems concerning this generation of weapons is SOLVED. The books are open — all you need is TIME, manufacturing capacity and simulation. Iran had the time, they've got their factories up and running and they have the computational capacity to run simulations. In fact, anyone reading this likely has a piece of the puzzle:
ht tp://www.ihpcrc.com/en/index.php
|
by gmmonko on 12.02.2010 [08:20 ]
|
|
|
...let a war against Iran never happen.
|
by Deathtodubya on 12.02.2010 [10:53 ]
|
|
|
Actually it's you who are getting all emotional with your original 'illiterates' comment. You don't like the truth so you try to bully people with insults.You swear at me when I never said a nasty word against you but so be it.
You must be poiytr in disguise I wager.
Learn history you say?I know history and I know that Syria has lost EVERY war against Israhell, so fuck off you cunt. I majored in history, top of the pile with awards and everything so I daresay I'm a lot smarter and well informed regarding history than you.
You are just a smartarse arrogant prick without a single fact to back up your idiotic drivel.
Where's your proof?
Truth hurts doesn't it you islamofascist cunt? Read your own fucking history and not what your leader says. You'd realise that it's Israel that own the Golan Heights and your beloved invincible Syrians with their Iranian superweapons just piss themselves with fright every time an Israeli soldier looks at them.
Anyway, enjoy your site here...I've been here since 2003(with the original war in iraq site) and have watched it slowly degenerate into a den of idiotic islamofascist rusophilic fanatics like yourself( with a few exceptions).
Cunts like you have no interest in sensible discussion. You're just a crude deluded propagandist without a single scrap of real evidence. You're worse than Gunny Hartmann, Ann Coulter, Fifth Estate and all the other pro US fanatics that have been here in the past. You are worse because you pretend to be on the good side, but are just here to discredit real thinking resistance by making all resisters look like mad dogs with an inability to grasp reality.
Hmm....I suppose you also believe that You'll get your 72 virgins in paradise as an installment if you scare me away from the site, so I won't go just yet...Won't give a scumbag islamonazi like you the satisfaction. I'll snipe at your lies just as the real Afghan and Iraqi resistance snipe against you Al-CIAda fanatics.
|
by Syrian on 12.02.2010 [11:53 ]
|
|
|
>getting all emotional
You're overestimating your own value to me, LOL. I'm responding now mostly for everyone else's entertainment and information.
>You must be poiytr in disguise I wager.
LOL, I actually wonder what happened to him/her. I lost the email address I used to write to them with. It's too bad you didn't wager a nice sum, I could have used the money while I'm abroad. But of course, only real men put their money where their mouth is.
>You don't like the truth so you try to bully people
You fired the first shot, go back and find out where.
ht tp://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/217338
If you read that, you'll find I started out by being nothing but polite to you. This politeness will now disappear, perhaps forever.
>I know history and I know that Syria has lost EVERY war against Israhell
Yeah :) You know history al right, delivered straight from Tel-Aviv university.
>I majored in history
LOL obviously very well "educated". You can shove your awards up your hide for all I care. You have no idea who I am and yet you claim you are smarter than me? LOL... Maybe its because I'm "Syrian" right? Yes, let me pick out a latter comment of yours:
>Truth hurts doesn't it you islamofascist cunt?
If you've bothered to read any of my posts you would have easily distilled that I'm not a muslim, not a christian, not anything. I'm a complete agnostic atheist from a heavy science background. But I guess all syrians are muslims right! Even those on the old christian damascus roads. Go shove your history awards up your arse you completely illiterate fuckwit.
>slowly degenerate into a den of idiotic islamofascist rusophilic fanatics like yourself
I've done nothing but criticise Russia's actions the past 5 years. I've been so severely disappointed with the Russian administration, that I have to control my outbursts as not to appear russophobic. The fact that you can misread me this badly, is beyond laughable.
>Hmm....I suppose you also believe that You'll get your 72 virgins in paradise as an instalment if you scare me away from the site
Now you're not only trying (but failing) to insult me, but you're insulting Muslims. But please, don't let me stop you, go insult these "real Afghan resistance" fighters, who have this faith. I heard the 72 virgin thing is a lie (probably something you learnt in your history class right?) so they'll probably laugh it up before kicking you out of their country for being such an idiot.
>against you Al-CIAda fanatics
Ironic that you level this against me, given how many al-CIAda fanatics I spent time trying to drive away from this great website. But of course, you were too busy moaning and groaning away at the idolisation of IsraHell and the USA that you learnt in history, right? Oh, those cluster bombs, oh those glorious flechette rounds — modern warfare at its finest!
But I can sense that you're definitely not one of them, I have a good sense about these things. I was on this site the day the war started and I will be on this site the day the war ends. Given your otherwise good contributions, I will accept an apology for the personal insults unleashed upon me, not that they were very effective, but it wouldn't be in good taste for me to be seen discussing anything with someone who wrote them. To be fair as well, I will apologise for the characterisations and insults I used. It's your call, but then we go straight back to discussing things RATIONALLY and you and I will back up all our assertions. DEAL?
|
by Lima-P on 12.02.2010 [11:55 ]
|
|
|
Syrian and Deathtodubya, to set the record straight for starters: neither of you is poiuytr. He, if I may put it that way, is another kettle of fish altogether. If you're missing him, you'll find him as usual on his blog Insurrection Daily.
Now to the matter at hand: Must every difference of opinion degenerate into a no holds barred brawl? And people threatening to leave never to return at the drop of a hat. You leave where do you go? There are so few decent blogs left on the internet.
We all want the same thing in the final analysis. Only details sometimes get in the way. So let each one have his say the way they like and may the final victory in all the Muslim countries under attacke go to the Resistance in the months to come.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.02.2010 [12:34 ]
|
|
|
How about low frequency radar systems that have the transmitter and receiver placed apart? Perhaps even using an array of transmitters and receivers.
Read about bistatic radar here:
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar
This also appears to be a good article:
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar
Here is a good tutorial on bistatic radar for electronics newbies like me.
h ttp://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/EN%5CRTO-EN-SET-133///EN-SET-133-01.pdf
More can be found here on multi-static radar and distributed sensing.
h ttp://www.rta.nato.int/Pubs/RDP.asp?RDP=RTO-EN-SET-133
And here is an advanced article:
h ttp://www.hindawi.com/journals/asp/2010/497074.html
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.02.2010 [12:58 ]
|
|
|
must use radar to find its targets. That leaves it in a moment of vulnerability.
No matter what, even stealth aircraft leave an infrared detectable heat trail.
Doppler radar can be used to detect the wind swirls behind the very un-aerodynamic stealth aircraft.
Any other ideas?
Keep in mind, Iran has started putting satellites into orbit. That's another thing that Iraq and Serbia did not have.
On another topic that interests me:
Iran has modified the S-200.
Iran claims to have "optimized" it.
What might that mean in specific terms?
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.02.2010 [13:17 ]
|
|
|
is a follow up of a discussion that began here:
h ttp://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/217338
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 12.02.2010 [13:34 ]
|
|
|
"We still kicked israHell's ass in 1973, a war we initiated."
A Syrian military veteran at a Sunnis mosque in the USA once told me that the Egyptians were winning the 1973 conflict at first. Then Nixon started sending all sorts of weapons to Golda Meier.
An Egyptian former-officer told me (at a different mosque) that at first, Egyptian SAMs were knocking the stuffing out of the Israeli air-force.
One of the two (I don't remember which) told me that Sadat got too confident and sent his ground forces too far forward (away from the protective bubble of the SAMs).
The Egyptians had effectively kept their SAM strength a secret and truly surprised the Israhellis at the beginning of the conflict.
But for every Israhelli tank the Egyptians destroyed, the USA would deliver two more.
The Syrian veteran said that Egypt could have won if Sadat had been willing to sacrifice more troops.
Anyways, I take what that guy says with a grain of salt because he believes that 9/11 was done by al-Qaida. I tried to explain to him that it was an inside job but he wouldn't accept that.
He was also critical of Iran for not having voiced enough opposition to Russia's policies in Chechnya.
"There was some betrayal in 1967, with a high-ranking official"
You should see how that Golan battle is depicted in US made "documentaries."
They said that the Golan was just a "headache" for the Israelis, and that some Israeli helicopters landed and defeated everyone up there.
I just rolled my eyes.
|
by pilot-x on 12.02.2010 [17:17 ]
|
|
|
Sprinkling salt, lighting candles, engaging voodoo ritual.
Hokum pokum smokum...
vooooDoooo ameriKa, destroyer of souls...
upping wattage
VOODOO amerik-uh,
attenuating
Vooooooo
Dooooooo
a-m-e-r-i-K-u-h
|
by Iron_Clay on 12.02.2010 [20:41 ]
|
|
|
I'd really like to think that US/IS/UK/France will be damaged in the attack on Iran but in reality the game is one hell-of-a-one sided.
You will likely not know that the first wave of strikes are nuclear till well after but I'm picking they will be.
I hope Iran has some surprises and really good ones but there's a shit load of "we're going to defend" talk and bugger all to back the words up from what I can tell.
The last words we should be listening to are political words as I don't care who's they are, they all lie.
Oh yes they will have some defense gear but I don't think Iran will survive the first wave of the attack.
The EMP is likely to drop Iran's defense to sticks and stones in the first days.
There is no justice in an attack, but there was no justice in any wars involving US or Israel in the last 50 years so why would we be expecting justice.
UK will help US in the Israeli northern front.
France will help US and Israel in the gulf and has clearly said so to keep it's oil open.
US will make the attacks on Iran defenses.
Israel will use Saudi air space to carry out the attack ... and the world will sit on it's fucken hands and watch.
Long after Iran has been reduces to lighting fires with sticks and stones, the same world will likely see just what Israel did and react against it .... but way too late.
Neal
|
by Iron_Clay on 12.02.2010 [20:52 ]
|
|
|
RE: Iran sends a carrier to the bottom.
Iran is very likely to send a carrier to the bottom ... that's not the problem.
The reason is the problem.
It's even more likely that an Israeli aircraft will send a US carrier to the bottom.
What ever it takes to get 300 million Americans backing their government for a week of two in a most likely happening.
Try not to get too hyped up when only the top of a US carrier is sticking out of the water ... it's designed to be that way for the cameras.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.02.2010 [01:05 ]
|
|
|
@Iron_Clay
I respect your ideas.
If you believe that Iran is sure to lose, that belief is ok by me.
I personally have confidence in Iran, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
@all
If anyone wants to say that they think Iran is certain to lose, but they are worried that they might come across as offensive to me, then don't be concerned.
Please, state your opinions freely.
I'd still like to get some thoughts on what I stated previously concerning countering stealth.
thanks in advance
|
by bernie22 on 13.02.2010 [02:01 ]
|
|
|
Remember Hezbollah did damage an israeli gunboat
with air to sea missile??????
What does the Taliban do with unexploded cruise missiles
and downed drones, they sell them to the Iranians, Russia,
China even Pakistan, possibly to the French also???
The basic engineering has been done all that has to be
done is clone it, with possible improvements???????
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.02.2010 [03:29 ]
|
|
|
Previously, a prediction was made by a different poster that a US attack on Iran would involve US aircraft taking off far away from Iran.
The problem that scenario creates for the USA is that the US aircraft would be unable to fly as many sorties as they would if they were taking off from a closer source.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.02.2010 [03:38 ]
|
|
|
Historically, the USA has used nukes to gain political leverage.
In the case of Japan, for instance, the USA claimed that atom bombs were dropped in order to end the war sooner, but actually, Japan had been trying to surrender for many months and the USA rejected those pleas while demanding that Japan surrender.
The real reason that the USA used nukes on Japan was because Truman's secretary Byrnes told him not to allow the war to end until the USA had used the atom bombs because that terror act would make Stalin easier to manage.
Even in Vietnam, the USA did not use nukes because it would have given them no political advantage, but rather a huge political loss.
The USA used nukes to intimidate Stalin, and later to pressure the USSR in the cold war.
Historically, we see the USA unconcerned about using nukes to achieve military victory.
Even when General MacArthur wanted to use nukes against Northern Korea, Truman had MacArthur dismissed because the use of nukes then would have had disastrous political ramifications.
So, we see the pattern that the USA has used nukes for political advantage, and not for military success.
The use of US nukes against Iran would be politically disastrous for the USA.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.02.2010 [03:39 ]
|
|
|
as to how the USA would resupply its troops in Iraq if Iran cut off the Strait of Hormuz.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.02.2010 [03:46 ]
|
|
|
1. Why would the USA use nukes against Iran when the economic and political consequences would be so negative against the USA, and the USA has traditionally eschewed the use of nukes for military victory.
2. How would the US fly sufficient quantities of air sorties if the sources of takeoffs were far removed from the targets?
3. How would the USA resupply its troops in Iraq if Iran cut off the Strait of Hormuz?
4. How would the USA initiate an aerial offensive which did not culminate in a ground offensive across Iran's rugged and difficult terrain?
Come forth you Clausewitz and Sun Tzu scholars.
|
by adrian on 13.02.2010 [03:47 ]
|
|
|
I think the calculation is: can Iran cut off the Gulf oil supply, and bring the world economy to its knees, before the US can starve Iran into submission?
I have no doubt Iran can survive a US air power assult - Serb forces in Kosovo did very well. The US has no stomach for a significant ground war to back this up. And the northern Caspian Sea route will be difficult to close.
Can Iran destroy Gulf oil supply and keep it closed? And how will the world adapt to this situation? These invariables are unpredictable, which is why the US hesitates.
I don't think nukes will be used, at least initially. Iran and Syria have biological capacity and would retaliate.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 13.02.2010 [04:18 ]
|
|
|
I didn't explain my previous post to you clearly.
Here is what I was concluding:
Yes, Syria and Egypt did kick Zionist gut in 1973. Syrian troops put their boots in the Mediterranean.
It was only when Nixon interfered that the Zionist entity managed to survive.
My previous post was unclear as to my conclusion.
|
by jimbo on 13.02.2010 [08:01 ]
|
|
|
Iran has developed effective "scalar electro-magnetic weapons" ( h ttp://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm ), then, it's all "academic".....there's, virtually, no power on Earth that could "take them out".....perhaps this was "the astounding demonstration" they were talking about a few days ago (?)
|
by Syrian on 13.02.2010 [12:08 ]
|
|
|
Now I understand what they mean by "missile distractors", its basically something that produces a fake radar signature. I think Yugoslavia did this before though, it was quite successful.
Iran might posses the Kolchuga passive radar system from Ukraine:
ht tp://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060922_1_n.shtml
(but this could have been propaganda, Jane isn't as reliable as it used to be)
Either way, Iran is one of the few countries actively researching passive radar technology. The classical monostatic radar configuration where the signal power drops off ~1/R^4, is not practical since it leaves itself open to attack — it needs to output a lot more power than the amount the aircrafts will reflect depending on their cross-section. Due to the minute cross-section of a stealth aircraft, it is impossible to resolve with this configuration. Basically, the radar relies on backscatter and is easily defeated by the geometry of stealth aircrafts which has sharp angles scattering very few wave-fronts back to the receiver situated at the site of the transmitter.
Bistatic radars don't suffer from this, since they do not rely on backscatter, but instead measure forward scattered signals. Ironically, the stealth aircraft's greatest strength, it's sharp angles, suddenly become it's greatest weakness. In the backscatter case, the stealth aircraft's cross-section increases more than a random geometric object since it forward scatters most wavefronts! Of course, this ignores the "stealth paint" which is applied to the aircraft to attenuate all wavefronts, but there is enough signal for detection! Bistatic radars aren't used in reality, instead Multistatic radars are employed using many transmitters and receivers. Quite often these transmitters may not even be part of the military — they will be civilian transmitters or even enemy transmitters. It all depends on how good the system is and how coordinated the operators are. It's not perfect though, you can imagine that there is an optimal location for the aircraft where the signal will be maximally transmitted and then drops off rapidly from there. When used into conjunction with other passive radar techniques though, it makes an excellent early warning system.
|
by Syrian on 13.02.2010 [12:24 ]
|
|
|
You posed some interesting questions, regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Also, your point #2 is extremely important, something most people miss: aircrafts have to take off from somewhere. Long range bombings are not efficient and leave the bombers open to interception for a long period in the flight. Why do you think America has bases everywhere, even though a lot of its expensive weaponry has extremely long range?
Iran, like Syria, has some anti-airbase missiles, which would completely obliterate the surface of the runway making it unsuitable for take-off and landing. You will bet an immediate retaliation would be to use these weapons on the airbases they have mapped out. The beauty of things is the USAns are too arrogant (and restricted on foreign land) to build decoy bases. Syria and Iran are filled with decoys, everywhere, just like Yugoslavia.
The idea of a fast strike against all of Iran's defenses, before they can retaliate is the fanciful dreams of a bed wetter — too scared to face their enemies head on. Iran will retaliate against the USAns in Iraq, whether America wants it to be or not, it will turn into a land war.
All of this is academic though; interesting to talk about, but inconsequential to what is going on around the world. America will fade away, perhaps Israhell will attack Lebanon, perhaps they've canned the plans. That is where our attention must be concentrated.
About 1973, that guy information is not sound. We pretty much annihilated Israhell's airforce to the point where they had to fly in Indian mercarny pilots in brand new aircrafts. Their land forces were routed to the point that the USA had to air-bridge brand new hardware across the blitzkrieg front-line in order to turn the battle. I once showed the fanciful accounts of the zionists to someone who fought in the war and he laughed his head off. Seriously, go read their account of the tank battles with Ariel "Rambo" Sharon you won't believe your eyes. Its easy to turn defeat into victory when you can rewrite the pages of history. They were close to complete defeat and reoccupation, without the USA's help and Egypt's betrayal Israhell would not exist today.
|
by Syrian on 13.02.2010 [12:32 ]
|
|
|
Here are some websites of some Iranian military companies, they are really poorly organised but some information is better than none:
Munitions, vessels and vehicles:
ht tp://www.diomil.ir/en/home.aspx
Electronic warfare and other technology
ht tp://www.ieimil.com/main.aspx
Helicopters and some aircrafts:
ht tp://www.hesa.ir/
(Farsi and Russian are the only useful websites)
|
by DarkStar on 13.02.2010 [14:56 ]
|
|
|
1. Why would the USA use nukes against Iran when the economic and political consequences would be so negative against the USA, and the USA has traditionally eschewed the use of nukes for military victory.
I don't think they can use nukes unless they can blame Iran for a nuclear attack but you never know whether they would not be able to make the use of tactical nukes acceptable to public opinion with proper spin even without any nuclear attack to blame on Iran.
2. How would the US fly sufficient quantities of air sorties if the sources of takeoffs were far removed from the targets?
Not really a problem I think. There are massive stockpiles of ordnance from the vietnam war area as well as an entire fleet of decommissioned long range bombers which could be reactivated rather rapidly at minimal cost in addition to what they have immediately available for that purpose. Don't forget that a big deal of what the US threw on Serbia were done by long range missions flown from the US and back. They can also fly mid-range missions from the UK which is sometimes touted as the US's unsinkable aircraft carrier as well as from Saudi Arabia I guess.
3. How would the USA resupply its troops in Iraq if Iran cut off the Strait of Hormuz?
No problems, they have stockpiled everything they need (food, water, medications, vitamins and ammos) to hold on for a year or two in all their hardened positions in Iraq without problems. Besides, it is not too far fetched to think supply routes would be activated through Israel and Jordan from the Mediterranean.
4. How would the USA initiate an aerial offensive which did not culminate in a ground offensive across Iran's rugged and difficult terrain?
By destroying everything they can from the skies on a scale never seen before of course, avoiding altogether the need to resort to ground invasion.
I am thinking there are only two reasons why the US might not attack Iran.
1) Iran has the capability to retaliate on Israel and harm it extremely severely before they are entirely blown to shreds by the US.
2) Public opinion, legal matters.
|
by CANUKISTAN_VIEW on 13.02.2010 [14:56 ]
|
|
|
You are 100% right when you said that Israel was losing the war at the begining. However the reason why the tide moved in favor of Israel is that USA AIRCRAFTS WITH USA PILOTS INTERVENED in favor of Israel. This information was published by the "Globe and Mail" - canadian newspaper and included an interview to one the USA pilot who was involved and outraged by the USA government covert operation.
SO SADDAT PROBABLY KNEW ABOUT THIS USA INVOLVEMENT AND CONSIDERING THAT THE USSR WAS RUN BY THA KHAZARS HE PROBABLY DECIDED TO STOP.
CHEERS
The key in interference is to produce a PULSE ONE that bring to a halt all vehicles - unless the batteries and wiring are covered and grounded with lead. Wires act like antennas. For security best is to use OPTICAL SYSTEMS are interference free. The german Fox of the Dessert built hundreds of mockup tanks AND WON to much larger forces.
Cheers
|
by DarkStar on 13.02.2010 [15:40 ]
|
|
|
3) Iran has the capability to destroy most oil drilling sites and refineries in the Persian gulf before it is blown to shreds entirely.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
