Breaking News Iran-Israel Tensions

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada

The Israeli cabinet decided to attack Iran tonight.
If this is true, it is telegraphed in a way to give Iran time to prepare. Again, to show that Israel won't simply accept this, without blowing the entire region up in conflict.

I'd be very surprised if an Israeli retaliatory strike featured anything more than limited, targeted strikes.
 

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
8,732
Reactions
63 30,355
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Half of the ballistic missiles launched by Iran were not fired or never reached the target. Therefore, Israel and its allies were able to hit only 55 of 65 ballistic missiles. 10 ballistic missiles were hit.

Stupid guys increased Iran's success rate without knowing or understanding.
By the way, for those who will say what nonsense this is, Iran also used ballistic missiles, some of which were 20 years old, during the attack. The fact that 40-50 of them did not work or fell before reaching the target is probably due to the fact that the missiles are extremely old, not due to a production error or incompetence.
 

2033

Active member
Messages
50
Reactions
2 81
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I've been following all the news since yesterday.

I don't believe that Iran really wants to harm Israel. Iran's first aim is to propagandize its own people.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada

Half of the ballistic missiles launched by Iran were not fired or never reached the target. Therefore, Israel and its allies were able to hit only 55 of 65 ballistic missiles. 10 ballistic missiles were hit.

Stupid guys increased Iran's success rate without knowing or understanding.
By the way, for those who will say what nonsense this is, Iran also used ballistic missiles, some of which were 20 years old, during the attack. The fact that 40-50 of them did not work or fell before reaching the target is probably due to the fact that the missiles are extremely old, not due to a production error or incompetence.
...... Ummm 20 year old weapons are used all the time in combat. It's about the storage, maintenance and upkeep state of those weapons. Podunk countries don't invest in that type of upkeep, therefore, they see large rates of failure. Non-podunk countries do invest in proper storage, maintenance and upkeep, and as result, their weapons work, often long after their expirary date.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Iran just tested the airdefences of Israel with old missiles from 40 years ago.

Israel just spend billions of dollars for old crap.
Actually, they didn't. The Americans, Brits, Jordanians and Saudis actually contributed quite a bit, sharing the cost burden of the interception.

It more than likely cost Israel $500-$750 million usd worth of interceptors, which us still a significant amount of money. But the there was no alternative. They couldn't let those drones and missiles hit their cities.

Furthermore, USA 🇺🇸 will almost certain pass approximately $14.8 Billion usd worth of military aid for Israel this week. About 80% of that money is earmarked to replenish them with additional Tamir interceptors for Iron Dome, Interceptors for David's Sling and Arrow, Patriot PAC-2 interceptors, and additional AIM-9 sidewinders and AIM-120 AMRAAMs.

For now, the price won't affect Israel much, if at all.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,307
Reactions
68 8,002
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
...... Ummm 20 year old weapons are used all the time in combat. It's about the storage, maintenance and upkeep state of those weapons. Podunk countries don't invest in that type of upkeep, therefore, they see large rates of failure. Non-podunk countries do invest in proper storage, maintenance and upkeep, and as result, their weapons work, often long after their expirary date.

Nope, even US missiles and ammunition generally has a standard shelf life of 15-20 years. It's normal if 15-20 years old Iranian missiles fails at high rate. (But for now I am suspicious of the report)
 
Last edited:

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
8,732
Reactions
63 30,355
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
...... Ummm 20 year old weapons are used all the time in combat. It's about the storage, maintenance and upkeep state of those weapons. Podunk countries don't invest in that type of upkeep, therefore, they see large rates of failure. Non-podunk countries do invest in proper storage, maintenance and upkeep, and as result, their weapons work, often long after their expirary date.
This only applies when carpet bombing random targets. However, you do not use the technology of 20 years ago when you have a better one for strategic goals. Because this reduces the success rate. In other words, Iran has saturated the missile defense systems of Israel and its allies with missiles, some of which are 20 years old technology. Israel and its allies were only able to hit 55 of 65 missiles. You can't sell this to anyone as success. In order for missile defense systems to be saturated, they must be overwhelmed by a certain number of missiles. When they drown, that's how your air bases start to be hit.
 

Rodeo

Contributor
Moderator
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,330
Reactions
31 5,066
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Iran just tested the airdefences of Israel with old missiles from 40 years ago.

Israel just spend billions of dollars for old crap.
It's not about the cost of the interception. It's about the replenishment rate of the used interceptors and missiles. Iran can probably produce ballistic missiles at a higher rate than Israel's manufacturing of the SAM missiles. The interceptors are of higher complexity and requires more resources than the BMs. Iran has been in this business for decades and should be able to easily overwhelm the Israeli defenses to do more serious damage. However, the retaliations would be insufferable for the Iranian Republic. The Israelis know the drill. In Israel, every house must have a bomb shelter by law. They can, at least, protect their people. The Iranians are helpless in that regard.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Nope, even US missiles and ammunition generally has a standard shelf life of 15-20 years. It's normal if 15-20 years old Iranian missiles fails at high rate. (But for now I am suspicious of the report)
U.S. sent ATAM missiles to Ukraine that are beyond 20 years old, they've worked just fine. Thry sent DPICM 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine that are beyond 20 years old. They worked just fine. They sent Zuni rockets to Ukraine that are well beyond 20 years old. They worked just fine...

A weapon might have a shelf life, but if stored properly, and / or refurbished adequately, it can often be used well beyond its expirary date. Ukraine has proved that time and again.

Hell, Canada is in the process of sending Ukraine CRV7 rockets that are WELL beyond 20 years old. Ukraine is more than willing to still use them as long as they analyze them and deem them still reasonably safe.
 

Rodeo

Contributor
Moderator
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,330
Reactions
31 5,066
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
An analysis of the attack by Tayfun Özberk(a Navy Veteran and the correspondent of Defence News, Naval News and Shephard News):

I see faulty analyses regarding the cost(cost of the interception). People are making calculations, I see analyzes like "It cost 1.5 billion dollars, if 10 such attacks were made, it would cost 15 billion dollars, good money". However, war is not like this, I think people see it as a one-goal match.

There was an atmosphere in Iran's attack as if it did not want to strike. First of all, the "raid and surprise effect" is essential in this type of attack. An attack like "I'm about to attack for a week and I'm going to attack this day" is against the doctrines. The fact that the first launched drones spent 6-7 hours on the air created a separate "early warning" effect. Iran will not actually attack like this, and Israel will not always remain on the defensive.

I don't know how accurate the 99% intercept percentage is, but if Israel had carried out the same attack on Iran (which has similar weapons), I don't know if this percentage could go above 50%. This is the case not only for Iran but for many countries in the world. Establishing the matryoshka-like layered air defense system that Israel has established in its limited surface area involves technological and economic difficulties.

Here we are talking about two states that are each other's raison d'être and constantly use each other to consolidate domestic public opinion. If there had been an attack of the quality and quantity to hit Iran with the intention of war, we would be talking about very different things right now.

A tip: If you're wondering when war will really break out, watch the movements of the submarines. It will lead you to the right conclusion.

--

 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada

All types of Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles capable of reaching Israel:

- Sejjil: 2000-2500 km
- Khorramshahr-4: 2000 km
- Emad: 2000 km
- Shahab-3: 2000 km
- Ghadr: 1950 km
- Paveh: 1650 km
- Fattah: 1400 km
- Kheibar Shekan: 1450 km
- Hajj Qassem: 1400 km
Cruise missiles are essentially irrelevant. The travel time from Iran to Israel, combined with the speed the missiles travel at, make them easy pickings for Israeli fighter jets with modern targeting pods and radars, as well as Israel's air defense network.

It's only really the ballistic missiles that pose a genuine challenge to Israel. Drones and cruise missiles (at least Iranian made ones) are annoying, but mostly ineffective.

It's not like Iran is firing Stormshadow, Taurus or JASSM when it comes to their cruise missiles. They're firing mostly inferior domestically sourced cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles present a different challenge entirely.
 

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
An analysis of the attack by Tayfun Özberk(a Navy Veteran and the correspondent of Defence News, Naval News and Shephard News):

I see troublesome analysis regarding the cost(cost of the interception). People are making calculations, I see analyzes like "It cost 1.5 billion dollars, if 10 such attacks were made, it would cost 15 billion dollars, good money". However, war is not like this, I think people see it as a one-goal match.

There was an atmosphere in Iran's attack as if it did not want to strike. First of all, the "raid and surprise effect" is essential in this type of attack. An attack like "I'm about to attack for a week and I'm going to attack this day" is against the doctrines. The fact that the first launched drones spent 6-7 hours on the air created a separate "early warning" effect. Iran will not actually attack like this, and Israel will not always remain on the defensive.

I don't know how accurate the 99% intercept percentage is, but if Israel had carried out the same attack on Iran (which has similar weapons), I don't know if this percentage could go above 50%. This is the case not only for Iran but for many countries in the world. Establishing the matryoshka-like layered air defense system that Israel has established in its limited surface area involves technological and economic difficulties.

Here we are talking about two states that are each other's raison d'être and constantly use each other to consolidate domestic public opinion. If there had been an attack of the quality and quantity to hit Iran with the intention of war, we would be talking about very different things right now.

A tip: If you're wondering when war will really break out, watch the movements of the submarines. It will lead you to the right conclusion.

--

$1.2-$1.5 Billion usd to intercept that many ordinance is actually peanuts when it's split between Israel 🇮🇱, USA 🇺🇸, Britain 🇬🇧, France 🇫🇷, Jordan 🇯🇴 and Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦.

Collectively, those countries can afford to intercept missile barrages for a LONG time.
 

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
8,732
Reactions
63 30,355
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Cruise missiles are essentially irrelevant. The travel time from Iran to Israel, combined with the speed the missiles travel at, make them easy pickings for Israeli fighter jets with modern targeting pods and radars, as well as Israel's air defense network.

It's only really the ballistic missiles that pose a genuine challenge to Israel. Drones and cruise missiles (at least Iranian made ones) are annoying, but mostly ineffective.

It's not like Iran is firing Stormshadow, Taurus or JASSM when it comes to their cruise missiles. They're firing mostly inferior domestically sourced cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles present a different challenge entirely.
You cannot saturate missile defense systems with 40 ballistic missiles. To do this, you need attacks that will ensure that the distracting ecosystem's resources are not wasted unnecessarily. In this respect, those cruise missiles you don't like are a very good option to keep Patriot missile defense systems busy. More missiles mean more hit rate.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,307
Reactions
68 8,002
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
U.S. sent ATAM missiles to Ukraine that are beyond 20 years old, they've worked just fine. Thry sent DPICM 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine that are beyond 20 years old. They worked just fine. They sent Zuni rockets to Ukraine that are well beyond 20 years old. They worked just fine...

A weapon might have a shelf life, but if stored properly, and / or refurbished adequately, it can often be used well beyond its expirary date. Ukraine has proved that time and again.

Hell, Canada is in the process of sending Ukraine CRV7 rockets that are WELL beyond 20 years old. Ukraine is more than willing to still use them as long as they analyze them and deem them still reasonably safe.

Yes, Western systems are stored and maintained better. But you are forgetting a good numbers of the old HARM failed miserablely in Ukraine.

Artillery shells and unguided rockets are much more simple and not comparable. They don't have complex guidance electronics.
 
Last edited:

Relic

Experienced member
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,544
Reactions
12 2,551
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Yes, Western systems are stored and maintained better. But you are forgetting a good numbers of the old HARM failed miserablely in Ukraine.

Artillery shells and unguided rockets are much more simple and not comparable. They don't have complex guidance electronics.
Do you have evidence to present that the HARMS missiles failed because of age? I haven't seen anything the that effect.

My understanding is that the overwhelming issue Ukraine faced with the HARMS was the integration with their OLD Mig-29s (not even made to be integrated). Furthermore, Russia's modern air defense was able to shoot some of them down.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that there was some major age related fault issues with the American missiles.
 
Top Bottom