NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, first I didn't believe their missiles could evade missile defence weapons...the Shahab 3B can, and thus it makes sense that the Fajr-3 can do the same.

Then I didn't believe their missiles could be stealthy...looks like the "Kowsar" is.

And their new torpedo is really very fast indeed, and it works.

And then I didn't know how they could deliver that sort of weapon...

And they unveil this:
http://a.relaunch.focus.de/img/gen/A/Y/HBAYA4QaOSp_Pxgen_r_395xA.jpg
http://a.relaunch.focus.de/img/gen/D/Y/HBDYA7QaOSp_Pxgen_r_395xA.jpg

It's a low-flying, relatively stealthy boat-thingy. It's so crazy that it just might work.

Is Iran turning out to be a serious place for military R&D?

Looks like a ground effect craft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan)

Russians played around with it during the cold war, looks like it could be a simpler way of getting 'fast and low' missiles around than all the guidance stuff.

Its an Ekranoplan/WiG vehicle, you can buy civilian ones quite easily these days and that one doesn't look altogether far away from the civlian ones a russian firm was trying to sell.
it isn't quiet on the scale of awesoemness as the caspian sea monster:
http://www.se-technology.com/wig/html/main.php?open=showcraft&code=&craft=24

there was the biggest build up of arms in iran by the late shah, so it is no suprise the mullah government is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to develop some cool wepons, its was only 30 years ago that iran had the 4th biggest army and navy,

oh the good old days;)

Don't forget they build their own tanks!

Did you see the 'flying stealth boat' video? It's piloted and flies, sort of skims a few feet above the water!

Made me want to get one. Fires missiles and everything.

The torpedo was fast.

On the missile launches, I suspect at least one missile launch they showed was re-used footage of a previous launch a couple of years ago, although I'm not sure.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'd heard of them, but I didn't know anyone was building them. And for Iran, they seem to be the perfect solution, don't they?

Low-flying, fairly quick, they claim it's stealthy (although it doesn't look it to me), and if armed with the right sort of missile...

Looking a tthe engine layout it would be about as stealthy as your average cessna, maybe even less and it would definatly be much less stealthy than your average anti shipping missile.
The thing is it interesting that they are biudling all these thigns, but none of them are actually new or terribly difficult to biuld and most of the stuff can be easily researched using the internet.

Looking a tthe engine layout it would be about as stealthy as your average cessna, maybe even less and it would definatly be much less stealthy than your average anti shipping missile.
The thing is it interesting that they are biudling all these thigns, but none of them are actually new or terribly difficult to biuld and most of the stuff can be easily researched using the internet.
That's a prop on the back? It could be a testing model, before they mount a jet engine on the back I suppose.

Allright .. this is disturbing..

I know the Iranian regime is pretty fundamentalistic and intolerant and that making them strong and powerful is a bad idea.

Still, I find myself quietly cheering them on :s Am I alone in this ?

Still, I find myself quietly cheering them on :s Am I alone in this ?
We're bred to cheer for the underdog...:D

We're bred to cheer for the underdog...:D

I wonder if Iran is actually counting on that...

They seem to be under the impression that we're going to do D-Day 2 or something.

All these developments seem geared towards naval combat. But what would be the point when we can just walk in through Iraq and Afghanistan??

The only other reasoning I can think of is that they're hoping to massively fuck with oil shipments in the Persian Gulf should the U.S. actually try and start anything. The economic chaos that would ensue, however, would earn the Iranians no friends...and plenty of enemies.

Fundamentalist regimes have never been known for their common sense. :rolleyes:

There's a fair few aircraft carriers sitting in the persian gulf, as well.

That's a prop on the back? It could be a testing model, before they mount a jet engine on the back I suppose.

A jet engine isn't really needed on such a small and light WiG although the current engine which looks like a fairly standard psiton prop seem to be very much an after thought although i can't really see where else they would an engine on that design. it isn quite obviously an early test example but one that seems to have even less in the way of actual thinking or refinment behind it than your average garage biult flying machine.
I wouldn't be suprised if it is the work of the local uni's engineering department.

There's a fair few aircraft carriers sitting in the persian gulf, as well.

Really? I thought there was only one. I thought the rest were in the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranian. :confused:

All these developments seem geared towards naval combat. But what would be the point when we can just walk in through Iraq and Afghanistan??
To be fair though, this particular wargame is played along the coast, and will thus feature mainly naval technology.

I suppose it's possible that they have different things for land combat, although I haven't heard anything about it.

Allright .. this is disturbing..

I know the Iranian regime is pretty fundamentalistic and intolerant and that making them strong and powerful is a bad idea.

Still, I find myself quietly cheering them on :s Am I alone in this ?

Perhaps it's the knowing that the governments of the major powers, led by the US, are against Iran getting nuclear weapon capability, when these same major powers barely protest, if at all, when Pakistan, India, Israel, US, UK, France, China and Russia have nuclear weapons themselves.

It's the hyprocrisy of it all.

It's the knowing that yet another Middle East country is being bullied by a rampant Bush Administration that has destroyed one country, and you don't want to see it repeated.

Perhaps the sense that because of hyprocritic and bullying reasons, Iranians, people who aspire, who dream, who love, who cherish, who hurt, who laugh, who cry, who have loved ones, who have lives just like you and me, could be bombed and maimed, their blood and brains no longer signifying life and dreams but maiming and death, victims of hypocrisy.

Perhaps that is what makes you have a sense of support for Iran, the underdog standing up to the bullying dogs of the world, to put it in canine terms.

They seem to be under the impression that we're going to do D-Day 2 or something.

All these developments seem geared towards naval combat. But what would be the point when we can just walk in through Iraq and Afghanistan??


The Iranian military maybe thinking along the lines that Iran will not be invaded, but hit by cruise missiles and bombs from planes based on carriers in the sea, and are planning to try and disrupt these carriers.

Really? I thought there was only one. I thought the rest were in the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranian. :confused:
Ohh maybe. I just assumed the Americans were all parked there, cos it's closest to Iraq. Nevermind.

The Iranian military maybe thinking along the lines that Iran will not be invaded, but hit by cruise missiles and bombs from planes based on carriers in the sea, and are planning to try and disrupt these carriers.

Wasn't that the theory that some NS'ers came up with some time ago? Rather than waste troops on a full scale invasion, the US would use bombs and cruise missiles to take down the Iranian reactors. Taking down the carriers and supply ships in the gulf would certainly put paid to that idea and possibly force the US to either use land based aircraft or a full scale invasion.

Either way, losing those ships would be a huge blow to morale and if it is clear that the US is the aggressor in this case, the public would most likely shift heavily against the administration that ordered such strikes in the first case.

Wasn't that the theory that some NS'ers came up with some time ago? Rather than waste troops on a full scale invasion, the US would use bombs and cruise missiles to take down the Iranian reactors. Taking down the carriers and supply ships in the gulf would certainly put paid to that idea and possibly force the US to either use land based aircraft or a full scale invasion.

It's a theory that I certainly would not dismiss, and while this is going on, the Shias in Iraq are not likely to be happy about the US Strikes, and they may well begin mobilising Shia militias in attacks on US troops that may pin down US troops in Iraq, or at least, if US troops did go into Iran, harrass the rear of the advance.


Either way, losing those ships would be a huge blow to morale and if it is clear that the US is the aggressor in this case, the public would most likely shift heavily against the administration that ordered such strikes in the first case.

The success of the Iranian counter measures against those ships depends of course, on the success of the weapons, but also on the factor that ships from other countries (say UK, France etc) don't join the US armarda, but in such a case, the Iranians may only target the likely main military lead against Iran, the US, and maybe UK.

Either way, losing those ships would be a huge blow to morale and if it is clear that the US is the aggressor in this case, the public would most likely shift heavily against the administration that ordered such strikes in the first case.
Plus, if you are going to fight the Americans, you should do it where you've got at least a bit of a chance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html

Don't forget they build their own tanks!
Found a pic...now what does that look like to you? ;)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar3-pic1.jpg

Wasn't that the theory that some NS'ers came up with some time ago? Rather than waste troops on a full scale invasion, the US would use bombs and cruise missiles... *snip*I did say something along those lines...

They US strategists would not be "drawn" to urban warfare.. (they cant afford a trenches War with Iran)

The US army would bomb from the safe (far away) distance..
The question remains.. How would you strike back.. If you were Iran?
.
Also I am sure the Iranians will NOT strike back in a conventional way..

Found a pic...now what does that look like to you? ;)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar3-pic1.jpg

A Tank! ;)

It has the look of an Abrams M1, but it looks smaller. I've seen these things move in a video, and they look smaller, but they maybe just my perception.

Probably copycatted to look like an Abrams. Low turret, low profile etc.

A Tank! ;)

It has the look of an Abrams M1, but it looks smaller. I've seen these things move in a video, and they look smaller, but they maybe just my perception.

It's probably because the turret is oversized compared to the body if you look at an Abrams. At least the front end is.

Well, first I didn't believe their missiles could evade missile defence weapons...the Shahab 3B can, and thus it makes sense that the Fajr-3 can do the same.

Then I didn't believe their missiles could be stealthy...looks like the "Kowsar" is.

And their new torpedo is really very fast indeed, and it works.

And then I didn't know how they could deliver that sort of weapon...

And they unveil this:
http://a.relaunch.focus.de/img/gen/A/Y/HBAYA4QaOSp_Pxgen_r_395xA.jpg
http://a.relaunch.focus.de/img/gen/D/Y/HBDYA7QaOSp_Pxgen_r_395xA.jpg

It's a low-flying, relatively stealthy boat-thingy. It's so crazy that it just might work.

Is Iran turning out to be a serious place for military R&D?


I guess some one forget to tell these sub-human dirtbags that we'll be attacking from outer space.

It's probably because the turret is oversized compared to the body if you look at an Abrams. At least the front end is.

True.

I guess some one forget to tell these sub-human dirtbags that we'll be attacking from outer space.
What? You have weapons platforms outside of geostationary orbit? And here's me thinking Star Wars hadn't got past the failed study at LEO.:rolleyes:

I guess some one forget to tell these sub-human dirtbags that we'll be attacking from outer space.

'sub-human' eh? I say, are you planning on putting them all in concentration camps as well because of them being 'subhuman'?

How about gassing them, making them into lampshades and taking their gold fillings for profit? Do you advocate that too, seeing as you see Iranians as 'sub-human'?

How do those jackboots fit you? Do they chaff?

After Iran, do you see Poland as a target?

What? You have weapons platforms outside of geostationary orbit? And here's me thinking Star Wars hadn't got past the failed study at LEO.:rolleyes:

What do you call a satelite guided munition?

'sub-human' eh? I say, are you planning on putting them all in concentration camps as well because of them being 'subhuman'?

How about gassing them, making them into lampshades and taking their gold fillings for profit? Do you advocate that too, seeing as you see Iranians as 'sub-human'?

How do those jackboots fit you? Do they chaff?

After Iran, do you see Poland as a target?
You know, we have this thing people use in speech quite frequently on the internet... we like to call it sarcasm... ever heard of it?

Come again tomorrow for Lesson Two: Jokes!

[I win the interwebs!!!1]

'sub-human' eh? I say, are you planning on putting them all in concentration camps as well because of them being 'subhuman'?

How about gassing them, making them into lampshades and taking their gold fillings for profit? Do you advocate that too, seeing as you see Iranians as 'sub-human'?

How do those jackboots fit you? Do they chaff?

After Iran, do you see Poland as a target?

:rolleyes:

You know, we have this thing people use in speech quite frequently on the internet... we like to call it sarcasm... ever heard of it?

Come again tomorrow for Lesson Two: Jokes!

[I win the interwebs!!!1]

:p


Are people still marking sarcastic posts with that silly [/Sarcasm] thing?

I always thought that defeated the entire purpose of sarcasm, and I will never do it.

Wasn't that the theory that some NS'ers came up with some time ago? Rather than waste troops on a full scale invasion, the US would use bombs and cruise missiles to take down the Iranian reactors. Taking down the carriers and supply ships in the gulf would certainly put paid to that idea and possibly force the US to either use land based aircraft or a full scale invasion.

Either way, losing those ships would be a huge blow to morale and if it is clear that the US is the aggressor in this case, the public would most likely shift heavily against the administration that ordered such strikes in the first case.We don't have our carriers in the gulf to strike Iran. We can hit them from the Indian ocean, which Iran also borders.

What do you call a satelite guided munition?
Well it's not an attack from outer space.

Were you being sarcastic, for the record? I need to know whether to put my foot in my mouth.

:p


Are people still marking sarcastic posts with that silly [/Sarcasm] thing?

I always thought that defeated the entire purpose of sarcasm, and I will never do it.
Unfortunately, some people /coughidiotscough/ don't seem to understand sarcasm unless you add the tag. I only do it when being sarcastic about sarcasm. :p

I guess some one forget to tell these sub-human dirtbags that we'll be attacking from outer space.yeah!!! how dare them prepare their defense? :rolleyes:

So Iran might possibly end up being able to retaliate a little in a conventional manner. So what? None of this makes it an adversary on an equal footing to the West.

They can hope to be about as formidable compared to their enemies as 1940s Italy at best. They need to stop punching above their weight.

We don't have our carriers in the gulf to strike Iran. We can hit them from the Indian ocean, which Iran also borders.

So? If you can hit Iran with carrier borne aircraft from any bordering ocean, what's to stop them from doing the same?

A Tank! ;)

It has the look of an Abrams M1, but it looks smaller. I've seen these things move in a video, and they look smaller, but they maybe just my perception.

Probably copycatted to look like an Abrams. Low turret, low profile etc.



It's a Zolfaqar 3 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zulfiqar.htm).

The Iranian Zulfiqar [Zolfaqar] main battle tank is believed to be pieced together or developed from major components of the Russian T-72 and American M48 and M60 tanks. This tank, which is claimed to be in production in Irana, is said to be similiar in configuration to the M-48 and M-60. Other reports suggest that it bears a close resemblance to the American M1 Abrams.


Iran has about 100 of them, and another 1500 or so second line (T-72, Chieftain, and M-60) or third line (T-64, T-54, and M-47) tanks.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ground-equipment.htm


"Zolfaqar 3 MBT was shown again, and again it was carried on a trailer, which rises some questions about the actual status of this project."
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_394.shtml

And my favorite military analysis site has this to say:
Iran is also developing two tanks: the Tosan light tank and the Zulfiqar main battle tank. The Tosan is armed with a 90mm gun, and allegedly can travel long distances without wearing out its running gear (tanks are normally carried long distances by heavy, flatbed, trucks, to spare the tank excess wear.) The Zulfiqar is a hybrid of parts from M48, M60, and T-72 main battle tanks (all of which are in Iranian service). The Zulfiqar is armed with a 125mm gun like those used on the Russian T-72/T-80 series main battle tanks.

That article adds something that anyone looking at these develkopments should consider:
One thing to keep in mind is that the Iranians may have exaggerated the progress they have made on these systems. In particular, there is a dearth of solid information on the aircraft programs. There is even a chance that the some of the Iranian systems may be little more than vaporware. This is not unusual. During World War II, American intelligence assigned codenames to aircraft that were more imaginary than real. In this case, Iran seems to be working on these planes, but they are nowhere near ready to enter service. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20060126.aspx

And even more from the same source:

Iran has begun series production of the Zulfiqar main battle tank. This tank has six road wheels; the chassis appears similar to the US M60 (which the Iranians have hundreds of). The Zulfiqar mounts the 125mm gun (with autoloader) from the T-72, along with a 7.62mm coaxial machinegun and a 12.7mm machinegun on top of the turret. The turret is slab-sided and looks more like the M1 or the Brazilian Engesa than anything else. Zulfiqar uses a 780hp Russian V-12 diesel engine with a maximum road speed of 65km/hr (40mph). Zulfiqar has a chemical-biological-nuclear defense system, a laser rangefinder, reinforced passive armor, and good cross-country mobility. --Stephen V Cole
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/19991125.aspx

Armour is useless without air cover and adequate supply lines. Two things I can't see Iran being able to maintain should war be declared.

You know, we have this thing people use in speech quite frequently on the internet... we like to call it sarcasm... ever heard of it?

Come again tomorrow for Lesson Two: Jokes!

[I win the interwebs!!!1]

Oh yes, I've heard of sarcasm, but I've seen of late people on the internet and in RL being very serious and not sarcastic about describing Iranians, and muslims in general as subhuman.

It gets to the point now where the spotting of good old sarcasm on the net can become hard because of the increasingly commonplace abundance of non sarcastic scary rantings by people about 'muslim subhumans' and about how 'Mecca should be nuked'.

It's a Zolfaqar 3 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zulfiqar.htm).




Iran has about 100 of them, and another 1500 or so second line (T-72, Chieftain, and M-60) or third line (T-64, T-54, and M-47) tanks.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ground-equipment.htm


"Zolfaqar 3 MBT was shown again, and again it was carried on a trailer, which rises some questions about the actual status of this project."
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_394.shtml

And my favorite military analysis site has this to say:


That article adds something that anyone looking at these develkopments should consider:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20060126.aspx


It's quite resoureful manufacturing if that's what they are doing.

What do you call a satelite guided munition?

Something from NS and NS government's hugely bloated, trillion-dollar military budgets?

Plus, if you are going to fight the Americans, you should do it where you've got at least a bit of a chance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html

I read about that at the time. I thought that was the funniest thing I have ever heard! :p

Why didn't Saddam read that article! :D

Armour is useless without air cover and adequate supply lines. Two things I can't see Iran being able to maintain should war be declared.

Yep.
They have about 300 fighters, mostly '60s and '70s era designs. Their "Mission
Capable" status seems to be a bit spotty, especially with the older airframes (surprise, surprise!).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

They do have a native design, the Azarakhsh, of which 6 are supposed to be completed.

It is described as:

According to one theory, Iran cobbled together an aircraft by reverse-engineered elements from a number of other aircraft. Evidently a modified F-5, this Iranian design evolved from an examination of the wide variety of fighter aircraft in Iran's inventory [which include both the F-4 and F-5], along with training and experimentation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/azarakhsh.htm

It's quite resoureful manufacturing if that's what they are doing.

It is, but it also smacks of the trap Iraq fell into by manufacturing it's own main gun ammunition for the 7-72 tanks - sub-par performance.

It is, but it also smacks of the trap Iraq fell into by manufacturing it's own main gun ammunition for the 7-72 tanks - sub-par performance.

True.

The Iranians have three motivations for keeping a strong military. First, they have a (quite reasonable) fear of a US attack, particularly as we are now surrounding them on three sides. Secondly, they fear a counter-revolution from hostile Iranian exile forces. Third, keeping a strong military comforts a people who have quite recently been through a very bloody and brutal war of extermination against a madman.

My only real fear is that the theocracy will look to having a foreign crisis to quell internal difficulties, such as the current push to liberalise public behaviour statutes. In that case they might do something really stupid.

The Iranians have three motivations for keeping a strong military. First, they have a (quite reasonable) fear of a US attack, particularly as we are now surrounding them on three sides. Secondly, they fear a counter-revolution from hostile Iranian exile forces. Third, keeping a strong military comforts a people who have quite recently been through a very bloody and brutal war of extermination against a madman.

My only real fear is that the theocracy will look to having a foreign crisis to quell internal difficulties, such as the current push to liberalise public behaviour statutes. In that case they might do something really stupid.

Who?! There aren't any.

(Not enough to warrant any sort of threat- thats the major difference with Iran and Iraq, at least there was a 'viable' ex pat Iraqi cabal to form a govt. There is no one for Iran)

Actually, both the Iranian Popular Front and National Front have a fair bit of support outside the country. Both operate primarily from France, and promote a counter-revolution to create a democratic Iranian state.

And before you dismiss them as too small to bother with, both are larger than the forces Ayatollah Khomeini had with him during his exile.

Something from NS and NS government's hugely bloated, trillion-dollar military budgets?

http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=r0cka

Are you talking about my military budget?

:p

First, don't use sub-human as a slur, or I can give you a week-long break from the forums.

Secondly, cheers guys for digging out that article. I have referred to its content in the past, and it's nice to have a reference.

Third, the Ekranoplan works, it really is stealth, and normally it would use one or more jet engine. Small ones such as what is shown in the photos is fairly well-developed technology, and are even used as river/lake taxi services in some countries (Canada and Germany, I believe), carrying 10-20 people. The huge ones prototyped in the USSR worked as well, but were just a solution in search of a problem.

It is intriguing to find that the Iranians are considering putting it to military use. It certainly is excellent, solid technology with no military analogue in the West.

None of these things would survive to make a repeat attack, however.

All these developments seem geared towards naval combat. But what would be the point when we can just walk in through Iraq and Afghanistan??

A land invasion (without an intensive air campaign and complete destruction of their standing army and military, C&C infrastructure) would be an ill-advised one.

Iranians are pretty nationalistic and united, plus they have this martyr complex a la kamekazi. During the Iran-Iraq war, they were crazy enough to send teenage boys of the Baseej to clear landmines......by blowing them up by walking over them...

The more I dig the more I find out that it is actually possible that Iran might have the Shkval-E, supercavitating torpedo. Unlike later generation torpedoes the Russians developed, this one doesn’t turn and isn’t wire guided, and it only travels at 200mph. Arms shows that this older model was featured at include Abu Dhabi and Athens. There is speculation that Iran bought some, but there is no proof (other than them showing one off in demonstrations).

http://diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/Warpdrive_underwater.htm

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/de669aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Here’s a good link describing the state of the art SAM batteries that China sold to Iran.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hq-7.htm

It is precisely because of stuff like that, that NATO did not operate below 5000m altitude over Serbia/Kosovo. Serbia however had plenty of forest in which to hide their armoured units.

You couldn't do a conventional armoured invasion of Iran from Iraq anyway. You wouldn't get very far before you hit the 4000m high mountain range which shields the interior. The only lowland areas in the West of the country are along the SE border of Iraq, near the Shia population centres of Basra, etc. You can imagine what the 60% of Iraq not currently fighting the Americans would make of that. And the alternative is amphibious landings East of the border, almost guaranteeing a few ship losses.

So anyone wanting to take Tehran knows it's going to be mountain then urban warfare with infantry. Joy. :rolleyes:

More reasons to expect a surprise bombing campaign by the USN or Israel aimed at the nuclear facilities, without follow-up, because none is possible.