Putin’s Missile Could Make U.S. Attacks on Iran Nearly Impossible

originally posted by: junglimogli

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I believe Russia has already completed the S-400 now (which are not in the deal). So this isn't as much of a game changer as some would have us believe. Iran & Russia first signed the deal for the S-300s back in 2008. So I'd guess Israel & the West have many ways to defeat them now.

It's true the West would have developed plans to counter the S-300.. it's only natural to do so ..
However, they can not completely neutralize the S-300 .. heavy loses would still be expected .. and thats where the problem lies ..
The West always wants to fight wars where their enemy is weak .. and where they don't suffer heavy loses..
In this case, heavy loses would resonate home directly .. and the people would rise up against the war ..as with Vietnam ..

In the first gulf war we heard that we would need 10,000 body bags for our losses. In fact, we lost 324 troops. I suppose that you adhere to the dogma of Baghdad Bob. You can't guess at the number of losses in a hypothetical combat scenario when you only factor one weapons system. With this I must assume that you know nothing about military operations.

As for Vietnam, our world war two command structure made for higher losses than is accepted today. They were painfully slow in changing tactics when dealing with an asymmetric enemy. However, I challenge you to show me a country that can fight a war on two fronts with a 6000 mile supply chain for ten years.

The "WEST" always want to fight a weaker enemy, you say. This only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Sun Zu said 4000 years ago, to attack your enemy at his weakest when you have all the advantages. When you are the big dog the rest of the pack looks weak.

The people will rise up like Vietnam. Most of the demonstrations were young students that were directly exposed to the draft. Now, there is no draft and the military is voluntary. Most students here today have no idea of what is going on in Iran. They are only concerned about student loans and spring break not war.

a reply to: buddah6

America’s war record is not that sterling despite all the power it has.

Russia won WWII


The US has had a draw in Korea, lost in Vietnam, and as the poster you responded to says does always pick on weaklings to attack like Grenada and Panama.


Sure the US beat up on Iraq after they were weakened by many wars particularly an long war with Iran that the US supporter them in


Then in the insurgency in Iraq they had to bribe the Sunni tribal leaders in order to win!

Believe me the US is not all that its cracked up to be


It would do better by trying to be a peacemaker rather than a warrior country

a reply to: Willtell

Show me a country that DOESN'T go for a weaker opponent. You don't look at a country and say, "They're stronger than us. We can take them!" Russia in recent years has gone after former Soviet republics that have almost no military force. China is making territorial claims against neighbors that have weaker militaries than them. But somehow that's irrelevant when the US is involved.

a reply to: Willtell

Israel would have a problem having only legacy aircraft in attacking Iran-although their E.W. level may be even better than the U.S.'s(?)- but F-22 and F-35 capabilities could defeat Iranian missile defenses, albeit a bit slower and more methodical.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Im not arguing tactics of war

The idea in pointing out going after weak countries is to illustrate that the US isn’t really that much of a tough military power after all…

a reply to: Willtell

That doesn't prove anything. The German military in WWII was one of the most powerful in the world, and they went after forces that could barely fight back. The opponents that they go after doesn't prove anything about how powerful they are.

There currently are no military forces in the world that approach the level of US forces, so who exactly are they supposed to fight that isn't weaker?

a reply to: Willtell

We really haven't seen big losses in a military conflict since Vietnam, and even then the media coverage wasn't showing the whole picture.

I'm not really sure how the US would react to an equal to, or greater threat than itself. We have a lot of force-projection, but how are our defenses here at home?

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Zaphod58

Im not arguing tactics of war

The idea in pointing out going after weak countries is to illustrate that the US isn’t really that much of a tough military power after all…

I think you miss the point here! Any country that has to go to war will not have a sterling record. Any soldier who has fought is usually the first to opt for peace. Do you think that I wanted to leave my family on three occasions to run off to war? Do you think that I enjoyed seeing my son go off to war? Do you think that I enjoyed getting a call at two o'clock in the morning telling me my son was wounded?

"I'm not arguing tactics of war," you say! You can't argue anything about war because you know nothing! All you want to do is to criticize the US. You make statements about what we do and hide your nationality. I'm reasonably good at history and absolutely sure I can point out the history of your military or lack there of. I find your dubious superiority nothing more than a mask to hide your perceived inferiority.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Willtell

Israel would have a problem having only legacy aircraft in attacking Iran-although their E.W. level may be even better than the U.S.'s(?)- but F-22 and F-35 capabilities could defeat Iranian missile defenses, albeit a bit slower and more methodical.

I feel the need to point this out. Israel has conducted airstrikes into Syria and Syria is equipped with the s-300 missile. As far as I can tell Israel has not met any problems defeating it.

a reply to: Greathouse
I feel the need to point out that Syria has never had an operational S-300.

Which may explain why Israel has had no significant issue with it over Syria.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Greathouse
I feel the need to point out that Syria has never had an operational S-300.

Which may explain why Israel has had no significant issue with it over Syria.

The deal was cancelled in 2014. They still have a few for testing purposes but no active systems. ALthough even if they did it would not had deterred israel due to its height issues an d flying nap of the earth while a decoy flys above to sucker the radar on liek they did in the 7 day war.

a reply to: peck420

Add in the distance factor. Syria is next door Iran? That's a whole different ball-game. Numerically, I'd guess Iran would have a far larger SAM system and that would require a larger strike package...refueling.

Not to mention they'd never get past the F-22s in the UAE if the U.S. 'vetoed' the strike....

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Greathouse
I feel the need to point out that Syria has never had an operational S-300.

Which may explain why Israel has had no significant issue with it over Syria.

I don't believe that for one second. Yes I know the deals were canceled. What happened to the s-300's that were deployed at Tartus naval base?

One of the Russian propaganda rags (zero hedge) even reported that shipments were already received of the S-300's . Or is this one of the cases were mainstream media is to be believed because it sides with hopeful opinion?

Then there's this...............

Killing Hezbollah leaders was not the raison d’etre for Israel’s aerial foray into Syria. Israel wanted to destroy the weapons and interrupt the flow of sophisticated arms on its way to Hezbollah from Syria. We now know what Israel knew–in both locations targeted by Israeli fighter jets new, Russian-made, Iranian-distributed S-300 rockets were being stored. The S-300 has a range of up to 150 miles. They are a serious threat to Israel when used by both Syria and Hezbollah. Their launcher is very large. It looks like a very long and wide tube that sits on the ground or on the back of a truck. The rockets themselves are very large, about 25 feet long, roughly 4000 pounds and carry a 400-pound warhead. The link went from Russia to Iran to Syria and–had it not been interrupted–to Hezbollah. These S-300s would not have been the first or only modern rockets to be procured by Hezbollah. But they were a large bunch. And Israel needed to prevent the weapons from being brought into the Hezbollah field of operations.

source

Read that source carefully. If anybody in the west excluding intelligence agencies, thinks they know what's going on in Syria they are out of their mind.

Because Russia was being sued for $4 billion by not selling them, so obviously they don't want to pay up that amount, may as well make profit AND put yet another spoke in the yanks war wheels.



Looks like a win win for them.

a reply to: Greathouse
You are free to believe whatever you want...unicorns had to come from somewhere.

As for Tartus, unless Israel starts attacking the Russian base, they aren't going to get involved.

a reply to: yuppa
The test units deployed in Syria were never a full system. Russia brought Syrians to Russia for the full system evaluations and training.

I feel that if the US were to go after Iran's nuclear reactors we would use a multipronged approach. First I think we would use assets that WILL NOT EVER be picked up by iran's or most anybody's radar to overfly the reactor. I think that asset would "accidently" drop a aileron flap down for a second getting Iran's radar all excited. Then it would disappear. A month later that nuclear reactor ain't reacting too well. Shuts down.

If that didn't work. I would think we would send in another asset and iran's missile and defense systems would say everything just fine out there. I don't see anything. A minute later BOOOOM!!!!!

And if we find out they are storing stuff they shouldn't in some secret underground bunker, well.........

Bottom line. If the US so chose Iran's, most anyone's surface to air defenses, would be useless against the varsity strike package that would go in to do the job.

The USA has some amazing equipment, mind blowing, change your life if you see it equipment that I don't think any of her enemies has.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: yuppa
The test units deployed in Syria were never a full system. Russia brought Syrians to Russia for the full system evaluations and training.

I know thats usually what TEST MISSILES are for. demo purposes. still dont matter because the height requirement.

a reply to: peck420

Well last I heard Russians pulled all their troops out of Tartus around 2013. Nothing but civilian contractors taking care of it now.


But if you choose to go, ahead and pretend to be an expert on the situation in Syria.

originally posted by: yuppa
I know thats usually what TEST MISSILES are for. demo purposes. still dont matter because the height requirement.

Unless I am mistaken, there is no fighter aircraft on the planet that can maintain flight below 10 m height through uneven terrain. Which is the claimed minimum height for target acquisition.

Having never used the system personally, I couldn't tell you if that is accurate or not.