Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Viktor Jav said:

PPP is not the final say in economic strength, what it really means is how much purchasing power a currency has in its own domestic economy , ie: within China proper, the moment the Yuan crosses the boarder, currency exchange rates and status comes into play, which means what 10 yuan buys in China buys alot less in say South Korea. What is more the US is home to most of the world's currency reserves in gold (8333 tons), which means alot as most currencies in the world is fiat based.It is this status and trust that grants the dollar it's status.
But then I must also add in the caveat that an economy's size only means something if it is actively tapped into, the more easily understood notion of this is how many countries have a particular country as their largest trading partner.

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

PPP is not the final say in economic strength

Click to expand...

PPP is a more accurate measurement of a country's economic output, because it is not distorted by currency exchange rate manipulations which is widely pursued by almost every market participant for his own purposes. The major problems with PPP are that it is difficult to measure and difficult to apply. If you think China's economic output shouldn't be higher than that of the US, you can simply compare key economic measurements. For instance, China produced and consumed roughly 7 Trillions watts electricity in 2018, but the US produced and consumed roughly 4 Trillions watts electricity for the same period. You can't be the world's largest economy without the largest industrial energy power source! In all key economic output measurements, China is about 30% higher than the US, except probably only one measurement, that is, how much money has been manipulated which, of course, is the dollar's home game.

Viktor Jav said:

What is more the US is home to most of the world's currency reserves in gold (8333 tons),

Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? Do you know the US had more than 22,000 tons gold at the Breton Woods Conference in 1945? Do you know that the US had promised to everyone in that meeting that the US would keep this amount of gold intact as a requirement for the dollar as the world reserve currency? Because of the Korean war and Vietnam war, other countries lost their faith to the dollar, they quickly dumped their dollar for gold, which Trump probably would claim they 'stole' almost two thirds of US gold reserve. If the US honored its obligation to allow people to exchange their dollar with gold, the US would have zero ounce gold left in 1971. In this sense, the US is a habitual, repeated financial defrauder.

Let's do some simplified math to see what sense can the 8000 tons US gold reserve make today.

One metric tonne = 32,151 troy ounce
8,000 tons gold = 257,208,000 oz gold

One ounce gold = $1500
8,000 tons gold = $1,500 X 257,208,000 = $385,812,000,000 = $386 Billion

The US gold reserve is worth only $386 billions, about 50% of one year's US military budget.

With $22 Trillions debts already on book and at an enlarging speed of $1 trillion a year during Trump admin., 8000 tons gold reserve is a peanut for the US effort to salvage the dollar if people decide to dethrone the dollar.

Viktor Jav said:

an economy's size only means something

Click to expand...

Real economy size means life and death for a country that has enemies. You do need your real economic activities, not just Wall street monetary manipulations, to produce enough guns and bullets to sustain your war efforts. Not everything is purchasable for a country at war.

Real economy size also means life and death to the dollar. One of the arguments that the US presented to the participants of the Breton Woods Conference in 1945 was that the US had the largest economy in the world, therefore, its dollar should replace the pound sterling to be the reserve currency of the world. Now that the US real economic size is much smaller than China's, it is at China's goodwill to decide when and how to dethrone the dollar.

Jura said:

related to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a Russian bloggers says (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
it uses an optoelectronic system, not a radar, for target acquisition and tracking,
and uses its radar only for illuminating its missile's target

don't quote this if you don't believe it, if you don't understand what would be an advantage of this setup, or what ever

Click to expand...

nice finding.

Quick calculation, if they have a targeting optics with 800mm focal length ( full frame sensor ) then at 25 km the resolution is around 10 pixel/meter. ( 150 megapixel without colour filtering)

Now, the issue is the distance calculation, but visibly there are two different type of units, I presume they have the battery in one position, and few km away another optical station, and they triangulate the distance of aircraft.

Or they use laser rangefinder ( that can be jammed and detected)

I think the targeting optics can not be more than 1000 mm focal length , the camera housing is too small for bigger optics.
Cost range under 100 000 $ for targeting per camera module, can be made from commercial components up to 40 km targeting distance ( it can be pushed maybe more with clever design )

Gain of the dish is in the range of 40 db, sufficient to guide the missile onto F-22/35 from 30-40 km distance.





Looks like the best part of the Persian gulf has relatively rare cloud cover, so this system usable at least 40% of the time, and can push any adversary to nighttime attack.

Dammam suny hours.

Times matching each other, the Israeli F-35s become operational at the beginging of 2018.



Iranian intelligence discovered that the Israeli F-35 stealth fighter jets had carried out this sortie as a test of the possibility of an undetected attack on Iranian outposts and bases, during which they photographed those sensitive bases, evading the Russian S-300 missile system’s radar.

Unsubstantiated rumor.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Unsubstantiated rumor.

Click to expand...

Agree, however Iran has so many hills and mountains, so if the battery commanders are not disciplined, and they don't move continuously the units then it is possible to game them and to infiltrate the airspace.

Of course to do so would mean having to penetrate other nations in the process.
The Israelis have done that before twice for sure, but both cases were to bomb incomplete nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria respectively. But it’s not a operation type they like to do. It’s a absolute worst case situation.

The Iranians nuclear facilities are built underground to prevent a third such strike.
You need a Bunker buster. F35 lacks such. The US B2 packs such but it’s huge you can only pack it on a
Bomber or transport bird.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It was a non binding agreement and enacted only by the Head of State. A later Head of state tossed it. Mate.
Because it was not enacted as a treaty by the Senate it wasn’t binding and only enacted at the whim of the leadership.

Click to expand...

Minor correction, JCPOA was not signed by any Head of State. The US signatory was John Kerry.

That said, JCPOA is a legal binding agreement once it became part of UN security console resolution 2231 so long as USA is a member of UN. UNSC resolution does not need ratification of member state to be enforced upon all members.

Of course, you can argue that "I break it, so what", but you know the implication of it to US reputation and credibility in the eyes of very country.

The US didn’t totally break it. The State department didn’t enact sanctions on those who are still party to the JCPOA.
You can argue all you like on the rest the UN doesn’t have the ability to enforce it as a binding agreement.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The US didn’t totally break it. The State department didn’t enact sanctions on those who are still party to the JCPOA.
You can argue all you like on the rest the UN doesn’t have the ability to enforce it as a binding agreement.

Click to expand...

It is enough for the rest of us to see your point.

taxiya said:

Minor correction, JCPOA was not signed by any Head of State. The US signatory was John Kerry.

Click to expand...

which I pointed out.
However Sec state is an inferior office and works at the whims of the standing president as such his signature is only binding when backed by a willing executive or congress. What might have held the US to it would have been ratification by Congress but the Obama administration didn’t do that. They didn’t want to risk humiliation of having it voted down. So they tried to make an end run around that via the UN.
Even if they had Congress can still vote to break it.

That said, JCPOA is a legal binding agreement once it became part of UN security console resolution 2231 so long as USA is a member of UN. UNSC resolution does not need ratification of member state to be enforced upon all members.

Click to expand...

good luck. But that’s a load of horse piles. The UN is not a global government and its edicts are not enforceable without the UNSC. However the US is a permanent member with Veto power.
In fact this whole issue was hashed out at the start of the UN, the UN cannot overrule domestic foreign policy. It can only voluntarily enact policy. The UNSC cannot override a ratification. It cannot override domestic foreign policy and it shouldn’t.

Of course, you can argue that "I break it, so what", but you know the implication of it to US reputation and credibility in the eyes of very country.

Click to expand...

Not a damn thing.
Iran already had a long time distrust of the US but is still bound to the JCPOA not by the US but by the other signatories.
All of whom have also had issues of the UN used against them.

The only party that could “hold the President to Account” would have been Congress however the end run to the UN defused that. Many in Congress were disgusted with the JCPOA anyway.
So how is it binding? The UN can’t sanction the US just as it can’t the PRC or Russia when they misbehave. Heck it’s the US who keeps the lights on at the UN.
The individual nations could try but what good would it do? Most of the JCPOA are allied to the US. The EU doesn’t hold any real power save via the European members. The only two that might try are Russia and China who already are having rocky relations with the US.