Miscellaneous News

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
C'mon, there was an attack on USA forces by precision munitions, and the most interesting discussion for everyone is the downing of a civilian airliner, and internal politics of Iran ?
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
There are a lot of questions no matter who's version you hear of what happened during Iran's counterstrike but then that's why all the attention is on the airliner crash. Trump wanted to believe he scared the Iranians into not targeting Americans but that means the Iranians have advanced precision guided munitions in order to accomplish that to which hawks in the Pentagon don't want believe. Then there's the question of what happened with Patriot missile defenses? Having incoming Iranian missiles get knocked out of the sky is best case scenario for US propaganda purposes. There were reports that the base in Irbil knocked down Iranian missiles. Did it happen at al-Asad? Iranian missiles did hit there. So that says Trump was so confident that Iran wasn't targeting Americans that he told the base don't even bother turning on their Patriot batteries (which is most highly unlikely), Patriots didn't even seeing them coming despite the early warning, or they missed. Reports say the US was given hours of warning. If things operated normally and even if the US was able to knock out Iranian missiles, Trump would have to launch his 52 targeted sites like he threatened? He said if Iran attacked American targets in retaliation, that's what would happen. That's what Iran did but Trump managed to spin believing Iran intentionally did not target American lives into a full out victory over Iran.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
C'mon, there was an attack on USA forces by precision munitions, and the most interesting discussion for everyone is the downing of a civilian airliner, and internal politics of Iran ?
No there was an attack on Iraqi bases occupied by American forces that left no casualties other than the wishes of Iranian commanders. Based on images pre and post so far did little long standing damage those bases will probably be back to normal by Jan 31. A good number seeming to have had little impact at all. With a number having failed to impact the intended targets. 11/22 or a .50% failure rate based on Iraqi and American reports. 11/16 according to American reports with one hitting but not actually detonating at Erbil International Airport another 20 miles short. Which would be a 25% failure rate. Another report claims 18 hit but destroyed a couple tents a Reaper drone and a Blackhawk. That’s it. Only breaking news on this is once they get the numbers of hits and damage reports right but otherwise this is hardly more than symbolic. And Americans don’t react to symbols. The claim of 80 killed is dubious as American causality counts are openly reported. If 80 had been killed than Iran would be hit with a lot more than sanctions right now Tehran would be getting a retaliatory Missile strike at least a hundred fold more destructive than what they launched.

This is frankly by contrast the more interesting event of that evening. Iranians shoot down of the Ukrainian International Airlines flight. As there are still developments happening from first the Iranian denials then addition.
The nascent investigation, questions and early reports to be debunked.
Like one early report is of a T tail at the crash site. Boeing hasn’t made a T tail since the 727. The 737 is a conventional tail. If that report was accurate than it might mean a second aircraft but the only American Military aircraft with a T tail are C12, C17 and C5 currently American drones tend to favor V inverted V and Y tails. If that report is accurate than what other aircraft was there and who’s? Or is it fog of war error.
The backlash by the Iranian population is also on that’s developing and if there will be changes in the Iranian command system as a result.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Then there's the question of what happened with Patriot missile defenses?
There are none at those bases, At least not that night.

After the end of the Cold War as part of the draw down of US forces the Air defense capability of the DOD suffered. Recently there has been a push to reestablish lost capability as the threat of great power conflict increases. But in the 1990s the US was basically assured of Air superiority anywhere it might operate.
This caused the number of systems to drop. Despite what people seem to think Systems like Patriot, S300 and even the much bragged of S400 have a limited range and you want them close to the area being protected. That means either in line of attack or at the target. If the system isn’t there it’s not going to be useful. (This fact is often bushes under the rug by pundits who wish to deride systems or justify the Russian stance on Hypersonic glide systems as a counter to the US ABM which they claim is meant to break the deterrence madness. However the location and number of interceptors is the big critical issue and if they are not in the right place they are no use. ABM in California and Alaska blocks North Korean Missile even some Chinese but Russian Missile would go over the Poles in massive numbers far out numbering the comparative handful deployed.)

Missile attack by Iran was deemed the likely response but it seems like the US deemed it more likely to have been in Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Neither Al Assad or Erbil have Patriots.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
One thing that puzzles me. If Iranians missiles are so rubbish, only hitting as low as 50% of their target. Then how how come their strike on the Saudis oil complex was so successful, as the US claimed it was the Iranians!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
One thing that puzzles me. If Iranians missiles are so rubbish, only hitting as low as 50% of their target. Then how how come their strike on the Saudis oil complex was so successful, as the US claimed it was the Iranians!
Fire enough of them and 50% could be very effective. Again with the Patriots located away from the target they were basically open to attack.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Fire enough of them and 50% could be very effective. Again with the Patriots located away from the target they were basically open to attack.
Patriot can't do too much with this type of missiles.

That is strategic air defence, not tactical.

Means an attack like this can use up all missile from a battery, and the Patriot missiles are more expensive than the iranians.


The Tomahawk CLAIMED (by the USA) success rate is 80% .
So, 50% is not that bad, considering the real rate is lower than 80% ( 5%-10% of missiles never leave the launch tube on fire command : D )
 
Medvedev resigned as Russia's prime minister today.
earlier today I recited
Умом Россию не понять,
Аршином общим не измерить:
У ней особенная стать —
В Россию можно только верить.


will locate my favorite translation in a second ... it's (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
):

"Don't cover Russia with your mind,
Don't use your norms for understanding:
It has its outstanding kind -
You must believe without fading."

LOL!
 
Top