The Middle East War

[JasonJ]

They will be both able to hurt each other. Patriot will shoot down some, so will S-300, but neither will shoot down all of them.

 

How many offensive missiles do each have? It's kind of pointless to use missiles against non-critical ground targets, may even put additional strain on their international relations.

[urbanoid]

We can only guess, but Iran has a lot more, some say thousands. And much of Saudi Arabia is in range even for upgraded Scud clones.

[JasonJ]

We can only guess, but Iran has a lot more, some say thousands. And much of Saudi Arabia is in range even for upgraded Scud clones.

 

Sounds kind of like Seoul under Nork arty threat.

[Simon Tan]

They don't need anything nearly as capable as a Scud. The Yemenis have had considerable success with their converted Dvina (SA-2 Guidline) SAMs. Very ghetto but works remarkably well. CEP of airbase. Someone has done some decent guidance control mods.

[urbanoid]

But they have missiles a lot more capable than any Scud and in great numbers. I saw estimates of 650 Shahab-3 only, and those are 1000-2000 km range. There are hunderds of older Shahabs, still with enough range to 'service' some Saudi targets. And often (mostly?) on mobile launchers. And there are a lot of other, newer, more capable types. Reportedly not in big numbers, but the potential is there.

Edited January 5, 2016 by urbanoid

[seahawk]

And Russia could quickly deploy MiG-31 and S-400 to Iran to bolster their defence, denying the airspace to the KSA or the US.

[urbanoid]

And US can do the same for KSA, but methinks neither would.

[lucklucky]

And Russia could quickly deploy MiG-31 and S-400 to Iran to bolster their defence, denying the airspace to the KSA or the US.

 

Why Russia would go at that high level for Iran?

[Guest Charles]

And Russia could quickly deploy MiG-31 and S-400 to Iran to bolster their defence, denying the airspace to the KSA or the US.

No system, no matter where it is designed and built can deny airspace to someone who is hell bent on causing you grief. Yes, a well built and maintained Air Defence System, crewed by well trained professionals can make it difficult for one's adversary.

 

Charles

[glenn239]

Luckylucky Why Russia would go at that high level for Iran?

 

 

$100 a barrel for oil?

 

Simon Tan The Yemenis have had considerable success with their converted Dvina (SA-2 Guidline) SAMs. Very ghetto but works remarkably well. CEP of airbase

 

 

Huh. I was wondering 20 years ago why no one had done that yet. Iran operates SA-5. Wonder if they've looked at using it the same way.

[Josh]

I can't imagine why Iran would waste strategic SAMs when it has hundreds of ballistic missiles that would outrange that system anyway.

The Iranians could really make it rain if they wanted to. Not sure how effective KSA's AD would be against that; can't imagine they employ MIM-104 in the kind of quantities that would be effective against a large determined attack. On the other hand such a move likely would get uncle sugar involved.

[bojan]

They don't need anything nearly as capable as a Scud. The Yemenis have had considerable success with their converted Dvina (SA-2 Guidline) SAMs. Very ghetto but works remarkably well. CEP of airbase. Someone has done some decent guidance control mods.

Dvina/Volhov have G-G mode.

[Simon Tan]

The Yemeni conversions are not radar guided. They use Dvina components but are inertially controlled afaik. They claim a range up to 300km......

Edited January 5, 2016 by Simon Tan

[Roman Alymov]

 

Why Russia would go at that high level for Iran?

 

There are two plausible reasons:

1) To protect air route from Russia to Syria, where vulnerable cargo and passenger planes fly daily

2) To prevent KSA win war.

But both reasons do not require massive involvement, just some additional SAMs and planes sold to Iran (plus, may be, some shore-based missiles to close oil tankers route). Problem is Russian mil plants already running at full production and are unable to deliver additional weapons quickly.

[Josh]

Likely Iran could never absorb new equipment quickly enough regardless. Russian aide would have to be more direct. But in any case I don't see Iran and SA getting into it unless someone makes a rather massive miscalculation.

[Colin]

I suspect a direct conflict between KSA and Iran, without help from anyone else would likely resulting in KSA being defeated in most battles and going into panic mode. Despite all the shiny toys that KSA have, I think Iran will just field better trained and motivated soldiers.

[swerve]

But that's not at all likely. Saudi Arabia wouldn't be alone. The smaller Gulf states would back it, & there are a few other countries which wouldn't tolerate an Iranian attack on the parts of Saudi Arabia it can reach unless the Saudis had obviously started the war.

 

There's also the little question of geography. To get at Saudi territory, Iran has to go either through Iraq, or across the sea. It could bombard Saudi Arabia, or do more to help the Houthis & the like, but a direct land war looks a bit too much.

Edited January 5, 2016 by swerve

[JasonJ]

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

[Roman Alymov]

If not current global economic problems, we would have already seen $200 oil at that point of tension . But not this time.

[bojan]

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

 

To help team Sunni for what end? More money going to ISIS?

[Brian Kennedy]

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

Maybe because Iran hasn't blatantly invaded a neighboring country and would also probably fight real hard if we went to war with them?

[Corinthian]

S-300 wil be used to secure critical infrastructure and not parked on the Gulf shore, IMHO. So A2A clashes are not that improbable, deep strikes (by the Saudis Israelis on Iran nuke facilities) OTOH probably are - that one really requires great competence.

 

Missile strikes, obviously, mainly by Iran, but the Saudis have a few Chinese missiles as well.

 

Like wot happened during the Iran-Iraq with the IAF Osirak raid during the Iran-Iraq War. I'd think that'd be a perfect time to do such a raid on Iran sites, with the current Sunni-Shiite issues.

[JasonJ]

 

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

 

 

To help team Sunni for what end? More money going to ISIS?

Even Obama said that it was either the nuclear deal or war with Iran. It really seems to be in US interests that Iran doesn't get the bomb. Has nothing to do with helping ISIS nor elevating team Sunni as the dominant power in ME. KSA and the other tiny gulf states would just sit there as they have been, holding pretty military toys with no idea how to actually use them. The nuke deal will make it plain and obvious that Iran broke the deal which can be used as justification for large scale military conflict against Iran a couple of years from now. The deal arrangements are just delays to the Iranian program. Whenever the inspectors go in, Iran has to stop and hide everything. It's delay. The sanctions back in 2012 were delays. IIRC, there were assassinations of Iranian nuclear engineers which is just more delays. So by the time the US has recuperated from Iraq and Afghanistan, they'll be able to go into Iran, not for another lengthy occupation, but for a military campaign that severely destroys Iranian military and nuclear related industry. I'm not saying that I think this will likely happen, but that the basis of going into Iraq in 2003 and what the situation is turning into with Iran is not so different. Iraq 2003 had more ambiguous WMD claims but it rode on 9/11. Unlike the Iraqi WMD claim, Iranian nuke program is obvious.

Edited January 6, 2016 by JasonJ

[JasonJ]

 

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

Maybe because Iran hasn't blatantly invaded a neighboring country and would also probably fight real hard if we went to war with them?

But Iraq conducted no invasion leading up to the 2003 military campaign.

 

Iran can fight as hard as they like, but if the US fights a total war but with no long term occupation, Iran can't do much to defend itself.

[Corinthian]

 

They don't need anything nearly as capable as a Scud. The Yemenis have had considerable success with their converted Dvina (SA-2 Guidline) SAMs. Very ghetto but works remarkably well. CEP of airbase. Someone has done some decent guidance control mods.

Dvina/Volhov have G-G mode.

 

 

ISTR reading about how Israeli tankers experienced on the receiving end of "missiles the size of telephone poles" (i.e., SA-2) as panicked ersatz "ATGMs" in 1973.