The question is stated as delivery of a "S-300 or S-400 missile system." A "system" requires all the major operational components to be delivered (search radar, targeting radar, missile launcher, command post, etc.). Regarding hiding the system, while I agree that generally you don't want to give away the exact location of your military assets, it is important to credibly signal your enemies if you expect to deter them. Most of the Iranian comments to this point are probably inward directed, to create a sense of strength in the aftermath of the nuclear deal with the West. Outward directed statements (to Israel) will come when the system is actually functioning.
You know, I really like this question. Painful to forecast in some ways, but IMHO a case study based on the question and on our collective responses to the ebb and flow of news, etc might be a useful educational tool for forecasters. @kmcochran@GJDrew
Some of these questions that are the most difficult to forecast and resolve are also the most intriguing. I really wonder whether we could catch the signal that indicates this deal is going through.
@kmcochran@GJDrew@morrell this is like Chinese Ship Movements question. Don't ask it unless you can tell us how it can possibly and definitively be verified with OSINT. To the extent that it cannot, this question is just playing poker with Monopoly money.
The way I look at it, Iran will need Russian assistance to set up and operate whatever S-300 level system for some period of time, if not forever. Then there's the matter of spares and maintenance etc. I don't see any practical way that Iran could operate whatever they end up with outside of Iran. Vladdy buys drones from Israel. That's my dilemma.
I would still forecast 100% that this was fulfilled before the end date, with evidence. First, Iran already had S-300 missile batteries purchased from former customers. Second, Iranians were in Russia, training on the new software and radar upgrades over the old systems, so they wouldn't need, but invariably had, Russian trainers last fall. Third, nothing said possession had to be inside Iran, Russia had systems, esp. S-300s in Syria early, after Turkey shot down jet, upgraded to S-400. Giving control of Syrian based units would bolster Iranian defenses against Israeli pre-emptive strike, a definite purpose of such a system and provide reason for the Israeli objections being voiced here. Fourth, Iran fired a missile, we were asked then to predict another missile. Question resolved with intelligence source saying Iran fired that missile and "other missiles". Other? Remember, Russia took out ISIS targets with missiles launched from Caspian fleet. US claimed, later absolute silence, that two missiles crashed in Iran, no evidence found, Russia, Iran denied. That, I contend, was the test of the upgrade, in Iran, of new system, for which they were trained in Russia, with new S-300/S-400 system against incoming (for which this system is designed) and delivery of which, upgrade of which, could have arrived on dead-head flight of heavy transport aircraft, of which, over twenty known days of flights of troops and equipment out of Iran to Syria, would have easily covered, not to mention ease of delivery by ship via Caspian fleet.
So training, upgrade, delivery, opportunity, test, confirmation of test, no remaining evidence of Russian missiles, could all be confirmation of positive pre-end date, pre-voiding of this question, that had nothing to do with lawsuit (obfuscation smoke screen), press releases by the Bagdad Bob's in both Russian and Iranian sides, but on thread of evidence, even if circumstantial, evidence that when Putin gave instructions in April 2015 to make it so, it was.
@morrell, no, not HYSY 981. Last year there was a question about Chinese warship maneuvers West of the Phillippines. Eventually it was answered with an extremely obscure web link that was a needle in a haystack you'd never find with Google. I didn't keep a record of it but you may remember it and the resolution link. If so, please repost.
Based on that question I made the suggestion of having a kind of "Civil Air Patrol" of volunteer forecasters with access to a platform with military-grade intelligence. No takers! Also, our community of forecasters includes pretty much every country on the planet, so that kind of structure would preclude non-US-citizen involvement and then only a small slice of "clearable" US citizens. So maybe not worth it. Plus there is a large crowd of unemployed, cleared spooks that could be tapped for that, which doesn't include us.
On the third hand, the truly good forecasters in our crowd are 0.25% or less of the total, in terms of people who work a lot of questions and beat the crowd on that lot. Ergo, probably much more insightful than your average unemployed spook. So there would be value of a CAP outside of the usual "cleared" population. But still you'd have to have that MIL Spec interface. So what can you do. I think we should just exclude questions that obviously require military intelligence quality data sources to answer definitively. That would include this question.
I do recall that question now, thanks. But I didn't think it was so bad - could be answered reasonably well without needing access to evidence of where the ships were.
Reaffirming my forecast.
The question is stated as delivery of a "S-300 or S-400 missile system." A "system" requires all the major operational components to be delivered (search radar, targeting radar, missile launcher, command post, etc.). Regarding hiding the system, while I agree that generally you don't want to give away the exact location of your military assets, it is important to credibly signal your enemies if you expect to deter them. Most of the Iranian comments to this point are probably inward directed, to create a sense of strength in the aftermath of the nuclear deal with the West. Outward directed statements (to Israel) will come when the system is actually functioning.
You know, I really like this question. Painful to forecast in some ways, but IMHO a case study based on the question and on our collective responses to the ebb and flow of news, etc might be a useful educational tool for forecasters. @kmcochran @GJDrew
Some of these questions that are the most difficult to forecast and resolve are also the most intriguing. I really wonder whether we could catch the signal that indicates this deal is going through.
@kmcochran @GJDrew @morrell this is like Chinese Ship Movements question. Don't ask it unless you can tell us how it can possibly and definitively be verified with OSINT. To the extent that it cannot, this question is just playing poker with Monopoly money.
@jeremylichtman @Phronesis
The way I look at it, Iran will need Russian assistance to set up and operate whatever S-300 level system for some period of time, if not forever. Then there's the matter of spares and maintenance etc. I don't see any practical way that Iran could operate whatever they end up with outside of Iran. Vladdy buys drones from Israel. That's my dilemma.
Let's have some links on the Russian drone purchases from Israel.
I would still forecast 100% that this was fulfilled before the end date, with evidence. First, Iran already had S-300 missile batteries purchased from former customers. Second, Iranians were in Russia, training on the new software and radar upgrades over the old systems, so they wouldn't need, but invariably had, Russian trainers last fall. Third, nothing said possession had to be inside Iran, Russia had systems, esp. S-300s in Syria early, after Turkey shot down jet, upgraded to S-400. Giving control of Syrian based units would bolster Iranian defenses against Israeli pre-emptive strike, a definite purpose of such a system and provide reason for the Israeli objections being voiced here. Fourth, Iran fired a missile, we were asked then to predict another missile. Question resolved with intelligence source saying Iran fired that missile and "other missiles". Other? Remember, Russia took out ISIS targets with missiles launched from Caspian fleet. US claimed, later absolute silence, that two missiles crashed in Iran, no evidence found, Russia, Iran denied. That, I contend, was the test of the upgrade, in Iran, of new system, for which they were trained in Russia, with new S-300/S-400 system against incoming (for which this system is designed) and delivery of which, upgrade of which, could have arrived on dead-head flight of heavy transport aircraft, of which, over twenty known days of flights of troops and equipment out of Iran to Syria, would have easily covered, not to mention ease of delivery by ship via Caspian fleet.
So training, upgrade, delivery, opportunity, test, confirmation of test, no remaining evidence of Russian missiles, could all be confirmation of positive pre-end date, pre-voiding of this question, that had nothing to do with lawsuit (obfuscation smoke screen), press releases by the Bagdad Bob's in both Russian and Iranian sides, but on thread of evidence, even if circumstantial, evidence that when Putin gave instructions in April 2015 to make it so, it was.
Chinese Ships, @000? Are you talking about HYSY 981 (the oil rig)? That one was answerable with OSINT.
@000 http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/analysis-drone-deals-highlight-military-ties-between-israel-and-russia-24061368
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Report-Russia-purchased-ten-Israeli-drones-415575
I thought this was common knowledge.
@morrell, no, not HYSY 981. Last year there was a question about Chinese warship maneuvers West of the Phillippines. Eventually it was answered with an extremely obscure web link that was a needle in a haystack you'd never find with Google. I didn't keep a record of it but you may remember it and the resolution link. If so, please repost.
Based on that question I made the suggestion of having a kind of "Civil Air Patrol" of volunteer forecasters with access to a platform with military-grade intelligence. No takers! Also, our community of forecasters includes pretty much every country on the planet, so that kind of structure would preclude non-US-citizen involvement and then only a small slice of "clearable" US citizens. So maybe not worth it. Plus there is a large crowd of unemployed, cleared spooks that could be tapped for that, which doesn't include us.
https://www.theintelligencecommunity.com/
On the third hand, the truly good forecasters in our crowd are 0.25% or less of the total, in terms of people who work a lot of questions and beat the crowd on that lot. Ergo, probably much more insightful than your average unemployed spook. So there would be value of a CAP outside of the usual "cleared" population. But still you'd have to have that MIL Spec interface. So what can you do. I think we should just exclude questions that obviously require military intelligence quality data sources to answer definitively. That would include this question.
I do recall that question now, thanks. But I didn't think it was so bad - could be answered reasonably well without needing access to evidence of where the ships were.
@morrell, can you repost the link used to resolve the question and show how to get to it from a sequence of Google searches?