Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[crazyinsane105]

8 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I think Stingers are available but are the IR head would need able to discriminate such a small target. Still guns rounds are much cheaper and have less debris so i would use that , it just needs to be more precise. In this case the gun rounds have affected the propulsive system, but the warhead still went to explode on land.

Small drones don’t give off a very strong IR signal. And firing a Stinger that has a range of several miles, which can miss, has the possibility of it locking onto something else in the air (passenger airliner)

[lucklucky]

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Tamir is a 90kg missile.

Apologies,  i meant Trophy

[Mighty_Zuk]

Just now, lucklucky said:

Apologies,  i meant Trophy

Trophy has a warhead detonation rate of about 50%, according to an Elbit report from a few years back. Elbit's Iron Fist achieves a >90% detonation rate by using a warhead of their own. 

To do that you'll need a small missile, which then returns us to the problem of munitions being excessively fast for drones. 

[lucklucky]

The idea is to adapt that destrutive capabilities to a 30mm gun round.

[Mighty_Zuk]

10 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

The idea is to adapt that destrutive capabilities to a 30mm gun round.

If you find a way to fit more explosives into that round, tell me so I can sell the idea to General Dynamics and get rich.

[Josh]

A timed fuse would probably help, but that would require the firing platform to establish range and have an induction fuse setting device.

[crazyinsane105]

Can’t an AC-130 gunship with just a 40 mm cannon be useful in this scenario? It can fly high enough to detect low flying drones and 40 mm has an airburst capability I believe 

[Mighty_Zuk]

35 minutes ago, Josh said:

A timed fuse would probably help, but that would require the firing platform to establish range and have an induction fuse setting device.

That's something I think is being done for M230 guns designed for ground C-UAS use. It's not impossible they'll make the next iteration of airborne ones.

 

[Josh]

21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That's something I think is being done for M230 guns designed for ground C-UAS use. It's not impossible they'll make the next iteration of airborne ones.

 

The U.S. is doing it with its MSHORADs, which I think use a similar weapon. Seems like a decent caliber if you can make delay fuses that small relatively inexpensive.

[crazyinsane105]

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/10/28/irans-air-force-chief-in-pakistan-talks-begin-on-jf-17-jet-deal/
 

Apparently the Iranians are interested in acquiring the JF-17 from Pakistan. Unsure if this will ever materialize though 

[TrustMe]

Apache's 30mm gun has a very slow rate of fire. Good against armoured vehicles bad against small drones.

[Josh]

45 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/10/28/irans-air-force-chief-in-pakistan-talks-begin-on-jf-17-jet-deal/
 

Apparently the Iranians are interested in acquiring the JF-17 from Pakistan. Unsure if this will ever materialize though 

That would include a Chinese avionics package and Russian engines, IIRC. I doubt the former gets involved for political reasons latter for practical ones, assuming Pakistan itself was serious.

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Apache's 30mm gun has a very slow rate of fire. Good against armoured vehicles bad against small drones.

Probably adequate for prop driven aircraft with no pilot.

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Probably adequate for prop driven aircraft with no pilot.

The accuracy will suffer due to the small size of the drone. If attacking from any angle other than straight ahead accuracy will suffer too.

[crazyinsane105]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

That would include a Chinese avionics package and Russian engines, IIRC. I doubt the former gets involved for political reasons latter for practical ones, assuming Pakistan itself was serious.

I believe all sales need to be approved by China as it is a Chinese jet that is assembled in Pakistan. 
 

If the Chinese greenlight it, it’s because the Saudis are ok with Iran arming up. The Chinese are hesitant with arming Iran with actual weapon systems such as aircraft and subs due to their relations with the Saudis. So if the Saudis are ok with it, that is a major problem IMO

[Josh]

51 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

I believe all sales need to be approved by China as it is a Chinese jet that is assembled in Pakistan. 
 

If the Chinese greenlight it, it’s because the Saudis are ok with Iran arming up. The Chinese are hesitant with arming Iran with actual weapon systems such as aircraft and subs due to their relations with the Saudis. So if the Saudis are ok with it, that is a major problem IMO

Understandably the PRC is concerned about its sources of oil and is not going to walk all over the GCC. As for the Saudis being fine with Iran weapons advancement - I cannot picture in what alternate reality that happens.

[crazyinsane105]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

Understandably the PRC is concerned about its sources of oil and is not going to walk all over the GCC. As for the Saudis being fine with Iran weapons advancement - I cannot picture in what alternate reality that happens.

As stated before, we are now witnessing Shia and Sunni groups start to put aside grievances. If there is a true Saudi rapprochement to Iran, even temporarily, that’s quite an issue for Israel

Otherwise I don’t see why Iran would even bother inquiring about JF-17s to begin with. It would be a non starter if it wasn’t for Saudis turning a blind eye to it

Edited November 4, 2024 by crazyinsane105

[lucklucky]

33 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

As stated before, we are now witnessing Shia and Sunni groups start to put aside grievances. If there is a true Saudi rapprochement to Iran, even temporarily, that’s quite an issue for Israel

Otherwise I don’t see why Iran would even bother inquiring about JF-17s to begin with. It would be a non starter if it wasn’t for Saudis turning a blind eye to it

Why you saying this is something new? Don't Iran supports Hamas. Just one example.

[Stuart Galbraith]

In fact Hamas had very poor relations with Iran for a while, or such is my understanding. Support, well they are roughly aligned in the anti Israel axis. But they are isolated enough to be their own players, and perhaps Iran can see the problems with that. As we have seen actually. Iran has been slowly dragged into a war, not of their own making.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

As stated before, we are now witnessing Shia and Sunni groups start to put aside grievances. If there is a true Saudi rapprochement to Iran, even temporarily, that’s quite an issue for Israel

We might be seeing a Shia group and a Sunni group reach an understanding after one of those groups found itself high and dry in what is looking like an almost “post resistance “ world. That hardly means peace is breaking out all over the region. There’s also a major cultural and ethnic divide between Arabs and Persians.

 

2 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Otherwise I don’t see why Iran would even bother inquiring about JF-17s to begin with. It would be a non starter if it wasn’t for Saudis turning a blind eye to it

Inquiries cost nothing and I am not completely convinced the report is true.

[urbanoid]

33 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In fact Hamas had very poor relations with Iran for a while, or such is my understanding. Support, well they are roughly aligned in the anti Israel axis. But they are isolated enough to be their own players, and perhaps Iran can see the problems with that. As we have seen actually. Iran has been slowly dragged into a war, not of their own making.

Or maybe... quite the contrary?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think Iran was dragged into it by Hezbollah, whom had to be seen to be doing something. I think this is one Iran would happily sit out, its got enough problems as it is keeping its women in check.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think Iran was dragged into it by Hezbollah, whom had to be seen to be doing something. I think this is one Iran would happily sit out, its got enough problems as it is keeping its women in check.

Yeah, Iran-backed Hamas did Oct 7 against Iranian wishes, Iran-backed Hez got involved against Iranian wishes, Iran-backed Houthis started lobbing missiles at Israel against Iranian wishes.

I also have a bridge to sell you, good price, would you be interested?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

13 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Yeah, Iran-backed Hamas did Oct 7 against Iranian wishes, Iran-backed Hez got involved against Iranian wishes, Iran-backed Houthis started lobbing missiles at Israel against Iranian wishes.

I also have a bridge to sell you, good price, would you be interested?

I dont think Iran necessarily knew anything about October 7th, and the best reason for that is, I think Iran leaks like a sieve, and Israeli would probably have heard about it.

Besides, why would Hamas tell Iran their plans, when Iran doesnt tell them any?

Hezbollah is a long way from Iran, and I think frequently does whatever the hell it feels like. Even the iranian Republican Guard seemingly makes up its own foreign policy, so I dont see why this would be any different. I dont think iran particularly wanted to get hit by missiles, so why do I believe they gave Israel an opportunity to do it? As I see it, Israel actually precipitated much of the subsequent actions of Iran by the bomb that killed the Hamas leader in iran) which Iran felt they had to reciprocate against.

I can loathe Hezbollah and Iran, but it still doesnt mean I have to believe Iran wanted into someone elses war, and I see no evidence that is how it happened.

If Israels adversaries couldnt cooperate in 1967 or 1973 worth a damn, why do we believe they are doing to do any better now? I heard all this 'well they are all in it together' bullshit in the aftermath of 911, when Americans were trying to pretend Iraq was behind 911. There was no evidence of that either, but politically it was oh so useful to pretend there was. Same here. Israel wants a shooting licence against Iran, and Trump will probably be dumb enough to give them one.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If Israels adversaries couldnt cooperate in 1967 or 1973 worth a damn, why do we believe they are doing to do any better now?

Because then those were separate and independent Arab states, and now it's an organization with a clear chain of command involving numerous proxies across the region.

The difference is one of horizontality vs verticality.

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Israel wants a shooting licence against Iran, and Trump will probably be dumb enough to give them one.

This type of warmongering is what got the region into this mess. Time to change direction and let Israel finish the job, and it'll be done much quicker if the US got involved.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk