5 ms·

It wasn't luck. Iran has a very modern and capable military, ranked above countries like Canada and Australia in strength. https://www.globalfirepower.com/coun

by fooey 7y ago

It wasn't luck. Iran has a very modern and capable military, ranked above countries like Canada and Australia in strength. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Jamwinner 7y ago
As far as full military, sure. But their rudimentary guided srbm's are not the best by any measure. Their best still use infrared or standard gps for guidance. That is early 90s tech by american standards. Edit: wiki shows even lower tech ballistic style electromechanical guidance on their page. Thats 1960s tech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-313 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-313
- pjc50 7y ago
  ... assuming that the publicly available information on Wikipedia is accurate? https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-threat-and-proliferation/todays-missile-threat/iran/fateh-313/ https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-threat-and-prolif... claims "GPS/unknown" https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-s-ballistic-missile-inventory/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-s-ball... "improved the precision of the Fateh-110 guidance system, which uses both INS and Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) with a projected CEP of 250 m."
- option_greek 7y ago
  Since its a surface to surface missile, does it really matter ? :)
- jackpirate 7y ago
  Who cares what decade the tech is from? Those missiles landed dead-center on buildings. (Seriously, look at the images!) This demonstrates an impressive operational capability to select which targets to destroy.
- coldcode 7y ago
  The retired general who was Central Command leader at one point said their missile tech has become highly improved in the past few years. Here they missed on purpose.
- sswaner 7y ago
  I could not see any impact/blast marks in empty areas. If they missed, they missed wide of this photo. Every blast mark looked like it hit something. Especially the one that hit a hanger looks like it destroyed an airplane, probably a C-130?
- Seenso 7y ago
  > As far as full military, sure. But their rudimentary guided srbm's are not the best by any measure. Their best still use infrared or standard gps for guidance. That is early 90s tech by american standards. > Edit: wiki shows even lower tech ballistic style electromechanical guidance on their page. Thats 1960s tech. The US still fields missiles with "1960s tech": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Minuteman-III_(LGM-30G) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Minuteman-III... I'm not so quick to dismiss these Iranian missiles. They seem to be accurate and able to effectively perform the job they were meant to do. It's a mistake to classify military technology as lower=worse/higher=better like it's a tech tree from a videogame. Inertial navigation systems like these missiles seem to have are actually superior to GPS in many circumstances that are relevant here. Yes, they drift, but that's not a huge issue over a short flight time. More importantly, they're self-contained, jam-proof, and don't rely on a service provided by an adversary.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    By the 1960s, contemporary military capabilities were such that wiping out all of humanity was possible. It's absolutely unwise to dismiss old military tech.
adventured 7y ago
> Iran has a very modern and capable military Iran has a very backwards military with almost no air force and no serious navy power at all. The few planes they have are mostly ancient and their navy consists of speed boats. They have a thousand tanks that are a mixture of ancient and more modern tanks with medium capability compared to the US. They have a large standing army that is moderately well trained, with some large elite forces, and they have good ballistic missile capabilities. They have almost zero ability to properly defend their territory from the US when it comes to air strikes. They have almost no ability to keep up a foreign strike outside of their borders, with their ballistic missile stockpile being their sole means. Basically they have almost no ability to sustain foreign strike capability via their military. Outside their borders they have numerous proxy terrorist organizations they fund persistently for asymmetric warfare. That's all they have. They're an impotent military after decades of sanctions and grinding poverty. In a war context that of course doesn't mean the US would find invading to be easy (it would be a disaster), it means the US strategy would properly be to sit outside of their borders and destroy everything inside of Iran and never invade; acquire air dominance (would take one or two weeks max), and continue wiping out all infrastructure and military capabilities as needed.
- Spoppys 7y ago
  Iran's military has been very intelligently shaped to maximise its ability with limited resources against the threats it's most liable to face. If Iran had focused on developing the best tank force or air force possible, would it make a difference? No, Iran's most likely enemies are either the US or a country supplied by the US and the best Iran could produce would still fall short. They would certainly lose a conventional war. So Iran has focused on developing asymmetric warfare capabilities. Their very large infantry and special forces mean any invading force will have an extreme insurgency problem to deal with, which could keep any enemy bogged down in a bloody and expensive war for literally decades. And their ballistic missile force can target important economic, military command or political targets, adding another significant deterrence.
- mcguire 7y ago
  "Iran has a very backwards military with almost no air force and no serious navy power at all." Iran has been developing a variety of land-based anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles. Given that their naval interests are limited to the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Sea of Oman (and the Caspian), that's probably enough naval power. Your air strikes are going to have to track down mobile launchers.

by fooey 7y ago

Jamwinner 7y ago

As far as full military, sure. But their rudimentary guided srbm's are not the best by any measure. Their best still use infrared or standard gps for guidance. That is early 90s tech by american standards. Edit: wiki shows even lower tech ballistic style electromechanical guidance on their page. Thats 1960s tech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-313 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh-313

pjc50 7y ago
... assuming that the publicly available information on Wikipedia is accurate? https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-threat-and-proliferation/todays-missile-threat/iran/fateh-313/ https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-threat-and-prolif... claims "GPS/unknown" https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-s-ballistic-missile-inventory/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-s-ball... "improved the precision of the Fateh-110 guidance system, which uses both INS and Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) with a projected CEP of 250 m."
option_greek 7y ago
Since its a surface to surface missile, does it really matter ? :)
jackpirate 7y ago
Who cares what decade the tech is from? Those missiles landed dead-center on buildings. (Seriously, look at the images!) This demonstrates an impressive operational capability to select which targets to destroy.
coldcode 7y ago
The retired general who was Central Command leader at one point said their missile tech has become highly improved in the past few years. Here they missed on purpose.
sswaner 7y ago
I could not see any impact/blast marks in empty areas. If they missed, they missed wide of this photo. Every blast mark looked like it hit something. Especially the one that hit a hanger looks like it destroyed an airplane, probably a C-130?
Seenso 7y ago
> As far as full military, sure. But their rudimentary guided srbm's are not the best by any measure. Their best still use infrared or standard gps for guidance. That is early 90s tech by american standards. > Edit: wiki shows even lower tech ballistic style electromechanical guidance on their page. Thats 1960s tech. The US still fields missiles with "1960s tech": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Minuteman-III_(LGM-30G) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Minuteman-III... I'm not so quick to dismiss these Iranian missiles. They seem to be accurate and able to effectively perform the job they were meant to do. It's a mistake to classify military technology as lower=worse/higher=better like it's a tech tree from a videogame. Inertial navigation systems like these missiles seem to have are actually superior to GPS in many circumstances that are relevant here. Yes, they drift, but that's not a huge issue over a short flight time. More importantly, they're self-contained, jam-proof, and don't rely on a service provided by an adversary.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  By the 1960s, contemporary military capabilities were such that wiping out all of humanity was possible. It's absolutely unwise to dismiss old military tech.

adventured 7y ago

> Iran has a very modern and capable military Iran has a very backwards military with almost no air force and no serious navy power at all. The few planes they have are mostly ancient and their navy consists of speed boats. They have a thousand tanks that are a mixture of ancient and more modern tanks with medium capability compared to the US. They have a large standing army that is moderately well trained, with some large elite forces, and they have good ballistic missile capabilities. They have almost zero ability to properly defend their territory from the US when it comes to air strikes. They have almost no ability to keep up a foreign strike outside of their borders, with their ballistic missile stockpile being their sole means. Basically they have almost no ability to sustain foreign strike capability via their military. Outside their borders they have numerous proxy terrorist organizations they fund persistently for asymmetric warfare. That's all they have. They're an impotent military after decades of sanctions and grinding poverty. In a war context that of course doesn't mean the US would find invading to be easy (it would be a disaster), it means the US strategy would properly be to sit outside of their borders and destroy everything inside of Iran and never invade; acquire air dominance (would take one or two weeks max), and continue wiping out all infrastructure and military capabilities as needed.

Spoppys 7y ago
Iran's military has been very intelligently shaped to maximise its ability with limited resources against the threats it's most liable to face. If Iran had focused on developing the best tank force or air force possible, would it make a difference? No, Iran's most likely enemies are either the US or a country supplied by the US and the best Iran could produce would still fall short. They would certainly lose a conventional war. So Iran has focused on developing asymmetric warfare capabilities. Their very large infantry and special forces mean any invading force will have an extreme insurgency problem to deal with, which could keep any enemy bogged down in a bloody and expensive war for literally decades. And their ballistic missile force can target important economic, military command or political targets, adding another significant deterrence.
mcguire 7y ago
"Iran has a very backwards military with almost no air force and no serious navy power at all." Iran has been developing a variety of land-based anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles. Given that their naval interests are limited to the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Sea of Oman (and the Caspian), that's probably enough naval power. Your air strikes are going to have to track down mobile launchers.