I cannot imagine a scenario where this could happen that is consistent with the video footage. An AAMRAM would have lit up the RWR and they’d have taken evasive action instead of flying straight and level. A sidewinder would have to be close enough that the Hornet pilot would have to be an idiot to miss the unmistakeable shape of an Eagle.
Over the next few weeks, keep your eyes on the Middle East
- Thread starter HunterPKP
- Start date
Yeah. It wasn’t an F-18. Per pilot friend that flies F-18s - Happened in the midst of a drone saturation attack. Add in, low competence. Fog of war. Comms issue. Whatever. They fired SAMs at 4 F-15s. One evaded. 3 hit. Definitely wasnt a Kuwaiti F-18.
I can't comment on the numbers because I know the real ones, but its trending much like the 12 day War. Israel took out 40-60% of their launchers the first time around. UAV launchers can be set up on a rail short notice, like the back of a pickup truck, and that can be a problem, but larger scales are harder to fire day by day. Unfortunately the 6 Army servicemen in Kuwait were killed by a OWA drone flying below the radar horizon, meaning they had no warning.
Between ourselves and Israel, launch UGFs and anything in the open is being systematically wiped out. Bandar Abbas (naval base) is basically destroyed. They have no air force of note. There are a pittance of air defenses remaining, mostly in the parts of the country we don't care about and arent on our approach vectors. In short, we could send in B-52s this week and they'd have no issue with the air defenses. As we work through the target lists, more and more will be gone. Obviously the AGMC is the largest and best funded branch of the IRGC, so they can still shoot, but the numbers will go down daily.
Iran's Internal Nav and limited SatNav on their missiles are pretty bad, Like 500m-2km CEP, that means they will miss 50% of the time within about 2km, so they aren't accurate whatsoever.
Whats interesting to me is that given the lack of C2 now that the leadership is getting killed, they've let regional commanders decide targets based on predetermined sets, their press said they went to contingency plans, but thats the reason. So they're just shooting anything they have at everyone in the Gulf. They don't care if KSA or UAE or anyone else get killed. They hope the other Arab states won't shoot back, but I'm of the hope that they won't just beg us to take out stuff, but that they'll volunteer to attack themselves. It would be funny to me to see the double-talking Saudis actively take offense.
As of end of day yesterday IRGC has fired around 2400-2500 missiles/drones across the region. I haven’t confirmed if that includes Israel or not. Their numbers of launches drop almost by half each subsequent day. This will still be prolonged.
Thank you for posting. Everyone in this thread should take 5 mins and watch this video.
Straight of Hormuz remains closed as an FYI.
No, but they are far more sophisticated than the camel jockeys we fought in Afghanistan, the bush league Saddam military we fought in Iraq and whatever crap Maduro trotted out. That's the point. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq with absolutely overwhelming firepower. We brought a fraction of that to Iran, a country far more sophisticated than either of those two and 3X the size of Iraq. That's not a plan. That's hoping that destroying Iran's leadership would result in some new Arab Spring.
If we have to send troops in, this campaign is an absolutely colossal failure. Surely you see that.
Yeah, that's the "plan" if the original plan fails. That's the point. It's a failing contigency.
again...you are giving Iran way more credit than they deserve. We've basically already eliminated their entire navy and their missile launching capabilities are now minimal. They are crippled already...surely you see that.
Just watch the video above...it will take you 5 minutes. This has been a success to date and is ahead of schedule. If you honestly think Iran is a legit military threat to the US and Israel I have no idea what to tell ya
They do not have the firepower to even be a challenge for the US and Israel
And "we brought a fraction of that to Iran"
You realize how fast the US ad Israel can add more if they need to. The firepower would overwhelm Iran
They have not destroyed any THAAD radar.
No you’re missing the point.
Air and sea superiority isn’t adequate to do regime change. You can win the war with it, you can’t win the peace.
Depends how you define "legit military threat." We were always going to cripple them. We have expended way more of our ordinance than intended. The Straight of Hormuz remains impassible. The Iranis have not come to the table per whatever plan our administration developed.
On the macro scale, we have alienated allies. We have lost two THAAD systems and have depleted our interceptor and Tomahawk inventories such that defense contractors are holding emergency meetings in DC today. Likely best case scenario is Khamenei takes power. Worst case is a lawless ISIS scenario. All of this because this administration decided to tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was working.
It all depends on who is put into power...we don't know that yet. Could it lead to an all out war? Yeah I guess it could but that would be a bad decision for whomever takes over for Iran.
You have zero idea what is and is not adequate in this situation unless you are sitting in meetings with people with the security clearance to be making these decisions. But to think Iran's military is a legit threat to the US and Israel is ignorant. We are far more powerful. Add in in Israel and their elite level intelligence and advanced technology and Iran, who again, is already majorly crippled at this point and they have no shot.
You seem to know your stuff so I will trust you. Many outlets have reported it although teh US has not confirmed or denied.
Wealthy religious zealots often make good decisions. That's why any plan of action should take the decision out of their hands rather than rely on fate.
"Failing contingency" is nonsensical. I don't know what that means. Perhaps you mean to say relying on a single plan, that by not having a contingency plan, is a recipe for failure. And to that I certainly agree. But I can assure you we have planned for just about every scenario. They may not be good plans, or plans everyone will find palatable, but we absolutely have them. We have plans for invading every non-allied nation, and some allied nations. One on my last stops in my former military unit was as Chief of Plans and Programs. I've seen such plans and I took part in executing some (very small pieces, to be clear). While war is the ugliest of ugly, the American war machine is a thing of beauty and unrivaled the world over.
Nevertheless, I won't quibble with the notion that sending in a ground force is bad. I absolutely don't want that. Full stop.
It's just that all this rhetoric about not having a plan for this and multiple other contingencies, to include boots on the ground... It's preposterous. We certainly do. They may not all be desirable plans, but we have them.
Last edited:
yeah anyone that thinks there are not plans in place for pretty much every scenario is ignorant and just hates this administration. These are two militaries with incredible leadership and intelligence. Possibly the two highest level intelligence militaries there are. To think Iran has an upper hand in any situation is ridiculous.
My guess is whomever they put in charge will accept a cease fire and Israel and the US will hold the cards. They'd be stupid and probably dead if they didn't and tried to go all in. Again...it is amazing to me that we have Americans upset about this when almost zero of their citizens are upset and majority celebrating. They want this to happen...
Qatar shutting down natural gas plants
The only outlet I have seen report it is a random Chinese (probably Chinese propaganda) website. Nothing from Reuters, NYT, WSJ, etc.
Iran's leadership has already put Khamenei's son in power. He has the backing of the IRGC. Israel targeted (and may have killed) a bunch of opposition leaders. President Trump said some of the guys we wanted to take over have been killed.
We cannot affect regime change without dismantling the IRGC and putting lots of soldiers on the ground. There is no competing military force for us to back like there was in Syria. I know there were talks of getting some Kurdish militia started but the currently existing Kurdish militias are more or less not available for us to use.
This is the point he's making really. A bad plan is basically the same as no plan. The US military is really good at blowing stuff up but what comes next and what is the purpose for blowing stuff up
Yeah “keep airstriking leaders until we find one we like” isn’t a serious plan but I think that’s as far as we’ve gotten here. The fact that State didn’t have pathways established to evacuate US citizens from the region when the obvious conflict expansion happened is telling.
No idea if it’s the plan or not but what if it’s just the Israeli troops on ground and no US? How would you feel about that plan?
I mean more than 1,000 children have died already according to the UN. I need a source for "zero of their citizens are upset" and "majority celebrating". Yes, I don't doubt that they despise the regime, but I'm pretty sure they hate being bombed too.
Anyway, trying to be charitable here, I think there is talking past one another on these sides. My issues with CENTCOM aside, I (and I assume others) are not doubting the US and Israel's military competence and ability to defeat the Iranian air defense systems, establish air superiority, and blow stuff up.
The big question we have is what comes after we blow through our list of primary targets (if we haven't already). What are the exit ramps we can take to end this? Are we sure that the US and Israel have the same end goals here (I don't think they are)? What exactly are the end goals?
For example, what if Iran just rejects ceasefire talks for another month or two? What do we do? What if we get to ceasefire talks and we can't agree with Iran on terms, what do we do? Do we just keep bombing? What happens if we kill so much of their leadership that the country descends into warlord anarchy with multiple competing factions?
If we want to change the regime, how are we going to do that without some substantial military forces on the ground either from us, Israel (lol not happening), or some militia groups that don't exist yet. What happens if the Iranian people don't rise up? What happens if there are no militia groups to act as ground forces? If we want to do regime change then why did Israel blow up/try to blow up opposition leaders? If we want to do regime change then how are we going to remove the IRGC? How are we going to make sure the leader we want to take over has a stable state to takeover?
These are the questions that don't seemingly have answers right now or answers that aren't good.
Iran has 96 million people. Iraq in 2003 had 25-26 million. Iran is nearly 4 times the land area of Iraq. Go look at population density and topographic maps of the two.
I think it is *highly* unlikely that Israel puts boots on the ground in Iran. Their goal is to turn Iran into Libya and bomb it every now and again
First time a US submarine has sunk a naval vessel since WW2 (November 29, 1944 to be exact)
1,000 children? Again where are you seeing this? Another one of your random news sources. I have not seen this anywhere.
Sorry, it was 1,097 civilians. Children killed is over 100. CTRL+F "HRANA" if it immediately doesn't go to the correct part https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cy0dp1l57nxt?post=asset:aa2781f6-69d5-4f57-b534-df79955dfcd1#post
Again, we need to ask what is the goal here? How do we measure success?
If it is regime change, history has given us few examples of where this has happened without a significant armed resistance on the ground. I challenge anyone to give us an example where sea andland air power alone has led to meaningful political change.
DOH: Edit to change land to air
If it is regime change, history has given us few examples of where this has happened without a significant armed resistance on the ground. I challenge anyone to give us an example where sea and
DOH: Edit to change land to air
Last edited:
so a not for profit volunteered ran agency is reporting this...gotcha...
But even if true, Iran has the opportunity to cease fire and stop with their attacks. You think they would care about dropping a bomb in the middle of NY and killing thousands of Americans if they had the capability?
Citizens of Iran were celebrating before they were told to take shelter in place...and Iran citizens in America have been celebrating. To say otherwise is incorrect. No one wants death to citizens except Iran which is why a lot of their drone attacks are targeted in those areas.
technology and abilities have dramatically changed which changes strategies. The same things we would do even a decade ago is different now with upgraded technology.
I knew you would quibble over the sourcing and numbers stuff and not over the bulk of the response about why people are skeptical and the very real concerns we have.
Saying "oh we have better tech and abilities [what the abilities things means]" isn't an answer for what comes next
Like I laid out above, I am skeptical there is a plan in place about what comes next
We don't trust not for profits any longer?
Are we Iran? Yes, their leadership has zero issue killing its citizens, us and anyone else. Are we better than the Irani leadership or are we teh same?
How has upgraded technology augmented our ability to effect regime change??? Better planes better regime change?
do I trust an Iran not for profit getting info from Iranian leadership...absolutely not