Iran Unveils New Homegrown Multiple Ballistic ‘Missile Gun’

[adenl]

I wonder where you got these numbers from. Just curious. On top of that, Iran's national currency is not the US$. Given that the Iranian rial/toman has depreciated against the US$ in recent years by a significant percent, I doubt you can cite a fixed US$ value for the price of any model of Iranian ballistic missile.

These are prices given by none other than head of IRGC-aerospace force, general Hajizadeh in various interviews. The Sejil wasn't specifically mentioned as costing $400000, but he said that their most expensive missile cost $400000 while the Sejil at that time was operational, and with it being a solid-fuel MRBM (more expensive than liquid-fueled) it is assumed that that price tag referred to the Sejil. The Fateh missile was mentioned as costing $100000, with this year unveiled Raad-500 weighing not only half as much as a Fateh, but also costing half as much.

Yes, Iran's currency is not the US dollar but they give these figures as an indication of how much their systems cost. Another example is in an interview with Iran's electronics industry official citing that Iran's radars that are comparable to foreign radars cost 4x less at $120000.

 

[500]

Assuming none of them would be shot down.

That is a very brave assumption.

The costs of procuring, maintaining and arming an F-16 along with training maintenance personnel and pilots should be considerably greater than the costs of training personnel for maintaining and launching ballistic missiles and for procuring ballistic missiles. Some of the latter tasks can also be automated with improvements in AI and automation.

If you consider the lifetime costs of 100 F-16 along with pilot training cost, maintenance costs, munitions cost, fuel cost and adjust it for expected number of F-16 fighter jets that can be shot down and the losses incurred once F-16 fighter jets are shot down, then you would find more than 5,000 ballistic missiles can be procured and maintained for the same costs.

Remember that cost per unit falls as production number rises. As more and more ballistic missiles, or any other type of weapons, are produced, the cost per ballistic missile (or any other type of weapon) will fall.

The same happens with the F-35 fighter jet, for example.

Economy of scale.

Maintain decent air force is very expensive thing. But when its needed it can provide insane amount of firepower. Also air force is the only effective air defence.

 

[ekemenirtu]

Maintain decent air force is very expensive thing. But when its needed it can provide insane amount of firepower. Also air force is the only effective air defence.

Therfore, usage of a barrage of ballistic missiles against adversaries may be more cost effective for a country like Iran in an asymmetric role.

Considering that it is impossible for Iran to match or surpass the USA and allies/poodles/partners in air power for the next few decades, some asymmetric solution is necessary.

I insist that nuclear bombs are a great equalizer. Iran should already have pursued that option and completed the task by now for its own good.

I can also understand why they would continue to argue, in public, that they do not need or want to procure such weapons. Primarily to deflect undue attention on it and to avoid diplomatic pressure brought to bear by the USA and poodles/allies/partners.

However, it can be quite funny when proponents of the regime continue to argue that nuclear weapons are Haram based on a fatwa/scholarly opinion of their Supreme Leader.

The existence of Air Forces has not eliminated the potential usage of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles, yet. Air Forces are not particularly well suited to projecting power across intercontinental ranges against peer powers or near-peer adversaries, depending on how such definitions are created.

 

[500]

Therfore, usage of a barrage of ballistic missiles against adversaries may be more cost effective for a country like Iran in an asymmetric role.

Considering that it is impossible for Iran to match or surpass the USA and allies/poodles/partners in air power for the next few decades, some asymmetric solution is necessary.

I insist that nuclear bombs are a great equalizer. Iran should already have pursued that option and completed the task by now for its own good.

I can also understand why they would continue to argue, in public, that they do not need or want to procure such weapons. Primarily to deflect undue attention on it and to avoid diplomatic pressure brought to bear by the USA and poodles/allies/partners.

However, it can be quite funny when proponents of the regime continue to argue that nuclear weapons are Haram based on a fatwa/scholarly opinion of their Supreme Leader.

The existence of Air Forces has not eliminated the potential usage of nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles, yet. Air Forces are not particularly well suited to projecting power across intercontinental ranges against peer powers or near-peer adversaries, depending on how such definitions are created.

Air force is much more multipurpose thing than ballistic missiles. For example campaign like in Karabakh u cant achieve with ballistic missiles. Or both US Gulf wars. Ballistic missiles are limited basically to causing damage. But even damage with air force u can cause much more in prolonged campaign. U can compare allied bombings in WW2 with V2 rocket attacks.

Countries which relly on ballistic missiles are those for those who can't afford strong air force.

 

[ekemenirtu]

Air force is much more multipurpose thing than ballistic missiles. For example campaign like in Karabakh u cant achieve with ballistic missiles. Or both US Gulf wars. Ballistic missiles are limited basically to causing damage. But even damage with air force u can cause much more in prolonged campaign. U can compare allied bombings in WW2 with V2 rocket attacks.

Countries which relly on ballistic missiles are those for those who can't afford strong air force.

Of course, an air force provides a much more versatile option for a country to execute its political or military mission than simple ballistic missiles.

However, air forces are also much more expensive to maintain and operate. Aircrafts are also easier to intercept and loss of pilots can be extremely costly in political, financial and in strategic terms. Loss of a ballistic missile or a drone hurts much less in comparison under most circumstances.

For a country like Iran that probably has no option of surpassing the USA and allies, or poodles if you would call them, in airpower, an asymmetric solution is needed.

The Karabakh campaign mostly involved the use of drones. The Iranian regime has not shown any reluctance to the usage of drones.

Both Gulf wars against Iraq were executed by the USA against a country (Iraq) that was about 12 times smaller in population and more than 30 times smaller in area, and many more times smaller in economy, industry and military industrial complex.

It is inconceivable at this time that Iran would engage in such an operation across intercontinental distance against a similarly smaller enemy with a similarly lopsided balance of power.

The versatility offered by an air force is undeniable.

When an asymmetric solution is required, a great equalizer (such as nuclear warheads mated with inter continental ranged ballistic missiles) is needed. The dependence on ballistic missiles, and more recently the ongoing development of hypersonic glide vehicles, for delivering nuclear warheads across intercontinental distances will probably not subside in the near future.