2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

[Randomuser]

The US mocks Russia for their stuff not performing up to scratch.

So what does that mean for the US who's fighting a decades sanctioned country with no NATO officially backing it.

 

[Gloire_bb]

100% of tanker and AWAC loss could be attributed to lack of proper basing. In China's case, basing wouldn't be an issue, so only threat to these platforms would be from sniping by 5th generation fighters.

China doesn't have reinforced hangars for most of its heavy aircraft either.
Only for portion (heavy bombers), and at a significant material cost. It isn't impossible to do it for all, especially as national effort (Atlantic pens were thrown up by Germans in mere months, surely China can do better 85 years later), but this isn't something done yet.

In ME sense, lack of basing is more difficult - you have to have such strong points everywhere in the world, in sufficient numbers. Should be doable via protection money, but it changes flexibility calculus significantly.

Especially since the'll game with large aircraft will itself be substantially...larger and less affordable. Big aircraft pens aren't inconceivable and were projected since 1950s, but it was just too bothersome. It was.

 

[drowingfish]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trump Tells Aides He Wants Speedy End to Iran War​

Taco is tired of watching 2 min videos of winning explosions every day. His drug ridden brain needs new stimulations.

Anyways, long on oil and some gold to hedge. This isn't going to end anytime soon. Trump is going to "learn" he can start war whenever he wants but he can't end war whenever he wants.

these signaling of impending end is not helping at all, similar to how obama's decree to begin drawdown of US troops within a year of the surge muddled the message to afghans. the idea that the US is looking for a quick out of this war is going to influence actions of all parties in the war, and not in a way CENTCOM would like.

even back at the start of the war, the promise of "no boots on the ground" wasn't helping. I think that was part of the reason why the Islamic Republic survived the killing of Khamenei.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

China doesn't have reinforced hangars for most of its heavy aircraft either.
Only for portion (heavy bombers), and at a significant material cost. It isn't impossible to do it for all, especially as national effort (Atlantic pens were thrown up by Germans in mere months, surely China can do better 85 years later), but this isn't something done yet.

In ME sense, lack of basing is more difficult - you have to have such strong points everywhere in the world, in sufficient numbers. Should be doable via protection money, but it changes flexibility calculus significantly.

Especially since the'll game with large aircraft will itself be substantially...larger and less affordable. Big aircraft pens aren't inconceivable and were projected since 1950s, but it was just too bothersome. It was.

Frankly, I was simply pointing out US had no choice other than to base AWACs and tankers within range of drones and short range ballistic missiles. PLAAF can simply base 1000km away from the coast.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Frankly, I was simply pointing out US had no choice other than to base AWACs and tankers within range of drones and short range ballistic missiles. PLAAF can simply base 1000km away from the coast.

True, but coast is hardly the final definitive frontline, and with available medium AWACS fleet it's also a problem. They're slower, mostly can't be refuell in air, and here it matters.

 

[another505]

If this is true, then the implication is pretty profound. For example, there's speculation that the US wants to take control of Kharg Island, which handles 90% of Iran's oil shipments. Well, what is the US going to do if they control Kharg island? Are they going to stop Iranian oil from going out the strait of Hormuz? Isn't that completely contrary to the goal of preventing the price of oil from skyrocketing? Controlling Kharg island is not going to secure the strait of Hormuz.

Nothing, taking Kharg means nothing and people are delusional about it. The only reason they are doing it because is the only way to escalate for US and Trump is an idiot.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Frankly, I was simply pointing out US had no choice other than to base AWACs and tankers within range of drones and short range ballistic missiles. PLAAF can simply base 1000km away from the coast.

At this point, I think that as far as possible, anything that doesn't require human decisionmaking or intelligent agility should be offloaded to survivable and or attritable platforms, even if those platforms are inferior in nameplate capability at first. Even if a drone tanker can only carry 30% of the fuel, it isn't pilot limited, making it much cheaper, and if it gets shot down or suffers an accident, it isn't as bad as losing manned planes. And since you aren't limited by pilots, they can be more aggressively used.

 

[dingyibvs]

At this point, I think that as far as possible, anything that doesn't require human decisionmaking or intelligent agility should be offloaded to survivable and or attritable platforms, even if those platforms are inferior in nameplate capability at first. Even if a drone tanker can only carry 30% of the fuel, it isn't pilot limited, making it much cheaper, and if it gets shot down or suffers an accident, it isn't as bad as losing manned planes. And since you aren't limited by pilots, they can be more aggressively used.

That depends on if you're more limited in qualified manpower or industrial capacity.

 

[discspinner]

Nothing, taking Kharg means nothing and people are delusional about it. The only reason they are doing it because is the only way to escalate for US and Trump is an idiot.

After taking Kharg, what is going to happen to the oil refinery and export facilities? If there is any stoppage, crude oil prices will rise even more on the world markets. What about the Iranian oil refinery workers, will they be forced at gunpoint to keep production going? Whose ships will take the crude oil at Kharg's ports?

Let's say hypothetically, for humor's sake, US takes the island, production continues unabated, and oil tankers take that oil onto the world market. Who do you think China will be PAYING? It doesn't even have to be the same oil from Kharg island. China KNOWS what % proportion of it's oil imports come from Kharg.

So, in the end, China will still be wiring payment to IRAN! Kharg will have the most expensive security personnel in the world

 

[plawolf]

Labeling "kowtow" is an extreme strech or missunderstanding how China works. Showing such photo is provocative in China's view unless China is in an open conflict with someone. Regardless China's open objection to US war on Iran, China isn't in the conflict yet. If China officially stepped in like she did in Korean war, I am sure we would have live-streaming of US assets being blown up.

Besides, China's SSO sats do go over the region as regular as they go over China and US because the earth rotates, Iran can get the photos for examing the result and also US/Israeli deployment. It is just that these photos are not allowed to be released to general public.

Actually I think the lack of open source satellite imagery is more down to market forces than any other consideration.

Western satellite companies are essentially banned from publishing images of obliterated U.S. bases and assets, that means Chinese companies basically have cornered the market and are probably making money hand over fist selling the images to anyone with the money to buy them. So of course they want to apply extremely tight end use agreements so they can sell the same image a hundred times instead of just the once if they let users post that all over the internet.

The free images that are published are more done so for marketing purposes to let interested parties know who to go ask about buying such imagery.