141

This whole ordeal starts to look more like this (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 week ago by cerealkiller@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 43 points 1 week ago

Nah its just that Iran has been wanting a ceasefire the entire time i think, and the combination if Iranian pressure on Hormuz, and Israels missile defence system proving insufficient made the zionists finally decide to stop.

Mainly Hormuz did it. Just hours ago shipa began to do U-turns away from Hormuz and Iranian govt approved a measure to allow closing it. Oil prices started to climb so the US pulled the plug. Thats my read on it anyway.

[-] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 33 points 1 week ago

I'm hoping Iran only wants a ceasefire to get to work on what they need to do in a very short window of time, as opposed to thinking they can still slack and have a tense peace.

[-] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 week ago

Yeah what they should do is get a ceasefire, immediately start buying chinese and russian weapons in bulk, and start making a nuke.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago

They need to vastly expand their anti air capabilities because they're seriously lacking.

[-] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

No what they need are Chinese 4.5 gen planes. Iran had fine anti-air capabilities, not the best, but fine. The issue is anti-air isn't the only thing you need. Iran uses old as fuck fighters from the cold war era. So they had no planes of their own, and were entirely reliant on anti air tech. If they had even 50 chinese J-series fighters like the ones Pakistan has they'd be able to put up a much better fight.

You can have all the anti air in the world but it won't matter if you dont have any planes to go with it. Eventually it'll get widdled away at, and holes will appear. That's what Israel did they created holes in the anti-air defence grid of Iran and just went in thru those. They didn't need to take out the entire countries anti-air just the regions they wanted to bomb. If Iran had planes this wouldnt work as they could use planes to cover the holes, and to defend the anti-air in the first place.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

I don't believe that fighter generations are the major factor in an air war. I think the range of missile technology is what matters.

You can put a gen 3 up against a gen 5 if you want, the fighter with the longer range missile is going to win by firing at standoff range.

This applies to ground-to-air as well BUT ground systems have the advantage of hiding to get first shot and prevent jets from launching missiles at standoff range.

The issue with the air-to-air situation is that US tech is going to be the best in the world in this field. Your fighters are going to lose to superior missiles. I would only trust cutting edge Chinese missiles to compete but they're not going to sell that.

This means you're gonna have to stick to ground where you get to cover this disadvantage in range with the advantage of first shot from hidden positions.

[-] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Israel also doesn't get the US's best stuff. The F-35s Israel has are special variants made for Israel for example. Considering Chinese planes/missiles were able to shoot down French Rafales while piloted by Pakistan they could likely hold their own against the F-35 variant Israel has too.

The reason fighter gen matters is that like you mentioned it's all about hitting the enemy without being hit yourself. Newer jets have better stealth tech, and better engines. Meaning they can stay out of range when seen, and also get closer without being noticed.

This allows them to take advantage of the better missiles which also usually to put new missiles on an old plane would need to be retrofitted. While yes ground stations can launch from hidden spots as soon as they do launch their location is revealed. It's kind of a one time surprise, and then the enemy adds that spot to their map of your launcher network.

Fighters have the advantage of being mobile. So they can be anywhere. Combining the 2, and having fighters do most of the work with your ground based anti-air as a backup, or to support a fighter if it gets in a tough spot is the best way to do it. Since you get the best of both worlds, and it is much harder for the enemy to accurately map out your anti-air network.

[-] CommCat@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

China and Iran are not very close, maybe things will change after this brief conflict. Iran still sees Russia as the closer military partner. Iran's foreign minister went to Moscow yesterday to meet with Putin. Iran is closer to India than China, and I think that is a big mistake on Iran's part. The Hindutva rulers of India are huge Zionists, and there were reports that a few Indians were caught inside Iran spying for Mossad during this conflict, this is unconfirmed. Iran also gave a 25 year lease on their Chabahar port to India instead of China. Reports did have China offering Iran their J-10 jets, years ago, but either Iran wasn't interested (Iran's previous use of Chinese military hardware was underwhelming, but China's military advancements have improved dramatically like many of their other fields) or China was afraid of Sanctions. China might be hesitant to sell Iran their top military hardware, because as this conflict has proven, Iran has a serious problem with moles and spies.

Let's see if there are any shifts in Iran's foreign policy, will they get closer to China? Pakistan can be very helpful here, because Pakistan has shown during this brief conflict, to be the only Muslim country (besides Yemen) that strongly supported Iran. Iran needs to reassess their relation with India.