The Iranian SAM causing some problems (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: So explain Iran. And Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Syria and all the other bases that have been hit repeatedly. At what point in the entire GWOT era outside of maybe the opening of Iraq Part 2 have we faced any significant challenge to our air superiority or appreciable threat from ballistic missiles or anything like shaheds? I'm not saying there's not a level of hubris and complacency there, but we've been playing whack-a-mole on the ground all century and only this year have we encountered moles that actually hit back to any degree. Again, not right, and understandable is a bad word for it, but I can see the progression of the thought process even if I think it was a mistake. |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Yes, great odds. Id volunteer to be a back seater if there was any contribution I could make besides screaming like a bitch at every turn. BUT, Iran doesnt need to cause WWII level losses. Look at the circus we went through to rescue our two F15 crew (rightfully so). We lost a fleet of aircraft in that one Op and possibly (probably) was the reason Trump lost his nerve and gave up. Iran watched that and realized all they have to do is shoot down very few planes and eventually capture a pilot to force the USA to capitulate.. The weakest link by far in the American military is the American voter 
|
|
Originally Posted By BB: Dont we have IRCMs for that? Furthermore why don't we have tons of crap box rockets and drones to overwhelm any possible air defense by an order of magnitude? Pretend it's ww2 and make way more than what is needed of something that is just barely good enough already. |
|
Originally Posted By merick: Furthermore why don't we have tons of crap box rockets and drones to overwhelm any possible air defense by an order of magnitude? we do / are building up. we even have our own shahed - the lucas |
If you can't take the high road, occupy the high ground.
|
Originally Posted By shaggy: Why we allow Iran to have things like rail lines, seaports, and airports when we're in a conflict with them and we know its going to be used for resupply is beyond me. Originally Posted By shaggy: Originally Posted By wgjhsafT: China. They have a rail line that goes through some former Soviet States (Turkmenistan as an example), right into Iran. Oil gets shipped that way as well. However, there are lots of boats and well, it's not hard to do it that way as well. Why we allow Iran to have things like rail lines, seaports, and airports when we're in a conflict with them and we know its going to be used for resupply is beyond me. This right here. The whole length of rail to the Iranian border should be destroyed. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: What if they only used this system 3 times and had a 100% hit rate? Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By jim02: 36000 sorties and 3 hits, that 0.002% success on target ID and hits of allied fighters. I like those odds. "You're telling me it's one guy, with three missiles? And he's a senior figgin citizen?" |
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: You have to know it’s coming. That’s harder with a passive system. IIRC all of the A-10 pilots shot down in Desert Storm were hit by IR SAMS they never saw. I didn’t know that. I figured that with all that electronics that there’d be some type of warning. Damn, never saw them. |
peach fuzz
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: You have to know it’s coming. That’s harder with a passive system. IIRC all of the A-10 pilots shot down in Desert Storm were hit by IR SAMS they never saw. Manpad size missiles are effectively impossible to out maneuver though. The engagement times are so short the pilot has almost no time to react and AA missile can outmaneuver any aircraft. The interweb says this thing has a range of 8km and peaks about mach 2. A passive detection system will take a couple hundred ms to identify the launch and perhaps one second to aurally alert the pilot. The standard human reaction time to an unexpected prompt is a bit over 2 seconds. In those 3 seconds the missile is traveling at its maximum speed and has already covered over 1km. A typical small AA missile can maneuver at 10-20g, double or more the maneuverability of a fighter. Additionally, a fighter loitering in the sky is probably flying at a lower airspeed to get more time on station, so his maneuverability is severely degraded. Manpad engagements at max range are over in 10-12 seconds depending on the missile. At shorter ranges engagements can be just a couple seconds. A modern manpad class missile fired within it’s limitations by a well trained and competent shooter means your only significant hope of surviving is if your countermeasures work. ETA: from my understanding, the sa67 is made in much greater quantities. It’s a loitering missile that runs on a jet engine and has a significant flight time (google says 15-25 minutes). It’s not supersonic though, so its effectiveness against jets is limited. It is a major killer of choppers and drones though. Difficult to detect since it is not rocket powered and can reach to something like 100 miles from the launch point. Pretty sure it is got most of the dozens of mq1/mq9 we lost in Iran. |