Larry Makes Good Points.

In his latest post titled: Understanding Why General Caine Cannot Guarantee a Slam-Dunk Success if the US Attacks Iran.  The issue here is not just geography, however important, but also the idea of Pentagon on how to conduct SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense). Even before China delivering her radar to Iran, during the 12-day exchange between Iran and Israel, IAF was rather "surprised" when one of Iran's radar "locked on" Israeli F-35. And here is the issue which many MUST understand--"stealth" myth is just that. In normal human parlance it is called "reduction of physical fields" of the platform or weapon and professionally is known as LO--low observability and even at that it totally depends on the rakurs (in Russian) which is essentially an angle to target where its LO diminishes radically once the frontal semisphere angles itself away from the source of radiation (radar). Add here modern advanced signal processing and voila'. In other words, your "stealth" counts for very little against serious modern and well-trained air defense. As USAF F-117 "stealth" bombers learned the hard-way during the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. 27 years passed since then.

I remind you that Iran has this:

This is Russian Over-The-Horizon (OTH) radar Resonanse (the range of 1,000 km), which Iran operates. This thing doesn't care if you have stealth, double or quadruple stealth. You will be seen and targeting data will be distributed to tactical AD units. Then, Iran has its own OTH. Here is the approximate coverage of Iran's OTH. 

And then there is Russian ISR which combined with China's Early Warning gives Iran a good time to prepare in case of a traditional first strike, primarily by stand-off weapons--yes, TLAMs and JASSMs. And here comes this critical issue--how deep are US stores and what are the chances that the US may lose a very expensive and reputation-heavy asset? The answer is known--those chances are very high while US stores for sustaining SEAD are not deep enough. Recall 1999 again, by the 50th-60th day of bombing the US started to run out of stand-off weapons. Comparison is not only inevitable but warranted. 

Serbia: area-88,000 sq.km. Population around 6.5 million. Older AD.

Iran: area 1,650,000 sq. km. Population 92.5 million. Modern air defense with combat experience. Support of allies. Critical strategic geographic location. A variety of strike means ranging from the ballistic to cruise missiles. Modern Electronic Warfare means.

Feel the difference? Yep, that's the difference. So, what's the plan? As always it is the same, as I repeat ad nauseam, hurl everything US got at Iran and then try to destabilize her from within. Regime Change trick. Always the same. Recall 2023 "counter-offensive" and instigation of Wagner mutiny. So, very few options for the US other than try to "shock and awe" the country which is in no mood to compromise and has wherewithal to stand her ground and shoot back. Iranians know what Patriots and THAAD's "capabilities" are--they are not impressed. Iranians are good engineers and better mathematicians, they know Operational Planning. So, here we are.

Google Translate Will Help.

USSR/Russia were in business of over-the-horizon targeting and shooting for a long, very long time. Since 1960s, and most important Soviet anti-shipping missiles had combat ranges in hundreds of kilometers since then. Those who read my latest book know--I concentrate on this issue--how important it is to know coordinates of a target and the rate of their obsolescence for developing a firing solution (or a flight plan, if one wishes) for a salvo of missiles. For that, in 1970s USSR created MKRC Legenda, which, for some of its shortcomings did provide good recon and targeting on which a number over-the-horizon launches were executed with excellent precision. Here is how (specifically "degraded" for public release) radar picture of Legenda looked. In this case it is Gibraltar Strait. 

You can see wakes of the vessels in the strait and, in case of required identification, ships of the size of aircraft carrier or cruiser could easily be identified and targeting data provided. 

Yesterday, Vsglyad, uncharacteristically, provided a good write up by Alexander Shishkin (a ship-building engineer) about newest Russian system Liana and, in general, over-the-horizon targeting by latest Russian technology independent from space-based Liana. I suggest you acquaint yourself with this piece, which, for those who read my last book complements it extremely well in describing peculiarities of coverage and developing of firing solutions by different platform-centric means, ranging from radar to sonar. 

Can Russian Missiles Hit American Aircraft Carrier? (In Russian). 

I think, it is a good article which gives good insight into the issue of the over-the-horizon targeting which is crucial for modern naval (and not only) warfare and which is a part of the Real Revolution In Military Affairs. The ranges will only increase with time and they will completely redefine navies--this process is ongoing as I type this. Anyhow, enjoy.