Iran launches Operation True Promise - massive missile/drone strikes across Israel, Israel allegedly responds with quadcopters

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's not how cost works. As long as the cost of the interceptor missile is less than the cost of the damages the incoming target would have caused (which it almost always is, Patriots or Arrow only protect important things), then you have a positive cost/benefit situation. Also, even if it's negative, war is not economics. Dollar values don't represent strategic importance. And even beyond that, the US military and Zionists is so well funded that it can afford to make many actual negative cost exchanges with no consequence.
That is manifestly incorrect. Although 'strategic assets' in fact do have extrinsic value beyond the rials and tomans, at a tactical level most battles occur within the fiscal domain. Also, note, rials and tomans notwithstanding, the capacity to produce and replace (i.e. counter the depletion/replenish) is the dominant factor--not funding. Complex systems always lose against almost as effective cheaper systems in this context. Although funding is important, physical replacement is what dominates.

One need to run a simple heuristic against these parameters and see that the funding and replacement parameters are well inside (or outside depending on how you look at it) the n-dimensional parameter effectiveness/success space.

The Soviets had the right idea with this strategy. However, they failed as they gradually forgot their strategy and tried to match the 'West' blow by blow.

Iran isn't doing that. Russia isn't either.
 
Last edited:
That is manifestly incorrect. Although 'strategic assets' in fact do have extrinsic value beyond the rials and tomans, at a tactical level most battles occur within the fiscal domain. Also, note, rials and tomans notwithstanding, the capacity to produce and replace (i.e. counter the depletion/replenish) is the dominant factor--not funding. Complex systems always lose against almost as effective cheaper systems in this context. Although funding is important, physical replacement is what dominates.

One need to run a simple heuristic against these parameters and see that the funding and replacement parameters are well inside (or outside depending on how you look at it) the n-dimensional parameter effectiveness/success space.

The Soviets had the right idea with this strategy. However, they failed as they gradually forgot their strategy and tried to match the 'West' blow by blow.

Iran isn't doing that. Russia isn't either.


There are other systems that can be used for cheap slow drones like C-RAM, which is way less expensive (than American made iron dome for the zionist US would supply it)


Your interpretation is correct on an anecdotal basis, what is the cost of each incident. but on the longest time scale you have to compare interceptors to targets to know whether that defensive strategy is sustainable.


In other words, all things being equal, if the enemy keeps launching $50,000 drones at your $200 million hospitals, and you keep shooting each drone down with a $3 million interceptor, eventually you are going to run out of interceptors to counter those drones and your hospitals are going to be lost anyway.


Of course nothing is that simple and if you are a much bigger nation maybe you can sustain the cost, or if the duration of the conflict is short enough you might not run out anyway and so on there are a million different factors. but at the end of the day "cost-to-counter" is a useful metric in determining the actual practicality of a system, even if it's not the only one to consider
 
Can't see the pic link bro.
Vi_P9Po2-7qfFz-2FelFc9BPRAB9cnNxyv60lziXgoNOhEEAnPh9cjCgRzsuzh9Qs9hY6k0tWZrlhvm4CTXQRUXLGR_I6d9XCpV46qqg2-VvZh2V4JxD6Db9DnnOPhSNkcHVkeMEILC7SqvukOEpJoH5ZZJuu6fBJ9NQXQm_LxYEUMFa0y9V5QtTO7g9IMi4vp7FvqsTfeRMsWX-jS_3nfJjfPJklTk3sNpVCf7SGILXaA23iRMPNeTIDrj-BKoFlO8-0jSjsT4ABKvbTB_ItGbcrYuvOADNzVj8EW9-cpPYV2jG48pjKa0PZGwp7qHemUvbeHR-ACbbEG72Vsm-sw.jpg


For the record:

This is a satellite photo of an Iranian ballistic missile storage / production facility. There are HUNDREDS of such warehouses and production facilities in Iran.

Practically every cent of Iran's defense budget has been spent on the mass production of ballistic missiles since the early 2000's.

The situation has now reached a point where the problem is not production capacity, but storage capacity. There are literally too many missiles to store. One commander famously said: 'We produce them like cigars'. Let this be clear.

@Middle_East_Spectator
 
There are other systems that can be used for cheap slow drones like C-RAM, which is way less expensive (than American made iron dome for the zionist US would supply it)


Your interpretation is correct on an anecdotal basis, what is the cost of each incident. but on the longest time scale you have to compare interceptors to targets to know whether that defensive strategy is sustainable.


In other words, all things being equal, if the enemy keeps launching $50,000 drones at your $200 million hospitals, and you keep shooting each drone down with a $3 million interceptor, eventually you are going to run out of interceptors to counter those drones and your hospitals are going to be lost anyway.


Of course nothing is that simple and if you are a much bigger nation maybe you can sustain the cost, or if the duration of the conflict is short enough you might not run out anyway and so on there are a million different factors. but at the end of the day "cost-to-counter" is a useful metric in determining the actual practicality of a system, even if it's not the only one to consider

Yeah, Bush administration was a big expert of throw taxpayer money straight to toilet in Afghanistan war.
But it was another administration, Bush father controlling dumbfuck son, military industrial complex, 911 self attacks, and so on, stupid things in sucession.

Situation changed in 2008. Lehman bros bankrupt, Soros' candidate: Obama took the power. American Jew elite took over USA power. They taught to non-Jew elite: We dont need invent wars to get money, we can print it directly. We dont need self attacks to govern people, people is coward and easy to deceive.

They are jews, but they dont five a fck about their Israeli cousins. Soros is a very well known enemy of Israel state.

Coming back to 2024.
USA can remotely disable all GCC and Israel expensive military hi tech hardware with a few mouse clicks: electronic backdoors.
USA can't do the same to Iran, Iran military technology is cheaper, it's worst than GCC/Israel, but it's homemade, it's unhackable by USA.

So it's to expect a USA backstabbing against Israel and GCC, and they will let Iran reign Middle East.

It's the backstabbing nature of USA current ruling elite. They did always the same.

Besides waste of energy of raw materials is the big concern of USA when peak oil approaches.
GCC and Israel are highly developed: too much energy and raw materials wasted.
Iran is a developing country: More sustainable, better from a USA point of view.
They can print money, but they can't print energy or raw materials.
Entropy is a stubborn problem, you can't cheat it so easy like to gentiles.
 
Can't see the pic link bro.
It's embedded in the word Link in that post. Are you saying it didn't link you to the page when you clicked it?

Either way, the entire dialogue I copied and pasted into the post so you're not missing anything. Here's that crazy pic.

GLZecuKagAAz4wQ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waz
There are other systems that can be used for cheap slow drones like C-RAM, which is way less expensive (than American made iron dome for the zionist US would supply it)


Your interpretation is correct on an anecdotal basis, what is the cost of each incident. but on the longest time scale you have to compare interceptors to targets to know whether that defensive strategy is sustainable.


In other words, all things being equal, if the enemy keeps launching $50,000 drones at your $200 million hospitals, and you keep shooting each drone down with a $3 million interceptor, eventually you are going to run out of interceptors to counter those drones and your hospitals are going to be lost anyway.


Of course nothing is that simple and if you are a much bigger nation maybe you can sustain the cost, or if the duration of the conflict is short enough you might not run out anyway and so on there are a million different factors. but at the end of the day "cost-to-counter" is a useful metric in determining the actual practicality of a system, even if it's not the only one to consider
C-RAM is point defense and an ADDITIONAL layer not a replacement layer. A drone making it through all the way to activate point defense is the worst possible scenario. Even if shot down the next one will make it.

To reiterate, although cost is a primary driver, replenishment dominates. Won’t work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top