>

How funny is that they think that infrared signature of construction of that size can be hidden.
Someone explain the logic please: you build a base underground to hide your equipment from us and go ahead to do a grand opening? >

The grand opening doesn't make sense unless it was basically obvious to other militaries that there's a bunker airbase there. Bunkers by themselves honestly are not as impenetrable as they once were and gain a decent amount of protection today based on secrecy rather than actual protection. This is because once using bunkers to store key equipment became commonplace, bunker busters were extensively researched to the point that most nuclear bunkers even aren't able to withstand modern munitions, especially against an enemy that knows where your base is and concentrates on it. In all, this is more for show as a country like the U.S. could either destroy it or simply damage it to the point it no longer can serve as an airbase and only smaller regional powers that have poor militaries would be threatened by it. >

I wouldn't be so sure. With modern advances in concrete technology bunker busters are again having trouble punching through to properly designed bunkers, and Iran is on top of implementing this technology. It's basically the one technological field where Iran is actually on the cutting edge (at least according to publicly available information).
The arms race between concrete tech and bunker busters has been going back and forth for a long time now, and it's not over yet. >

Keep in mind, you don't have to take out every plane in the bunker.
Just the entrance / exit. >

Temporarily disabling whatever function the bunker has is easy enough (crater a runway, destroy any communication links, destroy entrance/exits). It's the permanent destruction of the assets inside that is looking more unlikely. >

The thing about security is, it's the same ideas no matter what you're attempting to secure.
Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
The bunker covers those first two, but limits the last. If that limitation has been mitigated elsewhere, fine. Security is about trade offs. But having a bunch of airplanes grounded because you can't get the blast doors to your bunker open seems like a horrible point of failure in planning. >

Having hardened base is not a bad idea but Iran's fighter is rather outdated to say the least. >

It's an old idea. 80's old. >

Third generation fighters are no match for our fifth gen fighters. And they know this. Those phantoms may as well stay underground and turn the base into a museum. >

They're still usable as plain bombers, launching stand-off munitions from relatively safe airspace. Even a dinosaur like the Su-24 can fulfill such a simple role. After all, Iran isn't interested in contesting its enemies symmetrically, but rather employing large amounts of loitering munitions and ballistic/cruise missiles. In any case you're right that their aging fleet of jets isn't considered a serious threat compared to their ground launched inventory. 
Not like the Su-35 is going to close the gap considerably anyways, as Iranian enemies will be manhandling them using F-35s. >

Typically the words - stand off munitions - imply a certain level of accuracy / guidance that I don’t think is at play here for Iran. But maybe I’m wrong >


imply a certain level of accuracy / guidance that I don’t think is at play here for Iran. But maybe I’m wrong

There's nothing definitive on this publicly available. Fateh-313 is assumed to have a low-ish CEP (I've seen claims of anywhere between 5 and 50 meters), which makes it quite capable by anything but western standards. And obviously their missiles are by definition guided.
They've been heavily focused on their missile program for a long time now, especially since entering the nuclear deal. It would be very strange if they didn't make good progress. >

I get it but… calling a pistol a standoff feels okay when you are fighting a guy with a sword.
Calling a pistol a stand-off weapon when the implied enemy is israel / us … not so much. 
Maybe that’s too much mixing of metaphors. Like I said: there’s an implication / subtext to the word that is not conveyed in a strict definition. In a modern war against f-35s,  Iran does not posses or wield legitimate aa or ag stand-off weapons. >

They must not remember the one day they spent fighting the US. They lost half of their Navy in an afternoon. >

And the only reason they didn’t lose the other half is that the US called it off because they were worried about beating them too badly. >

Well hot jdam…tell me moab >

If you burn a hot fire at the entrance of a bunker it will suck all the 02 out of the bunker and everyone will suffocate to death. >

Or you just hit the entrances with penetrating bombs and just in case fly the occasional combat air patrol that can spot these ancient planes from hundreds of km away. >

Does that picture have EXIF data? >

Probably, their OPSEC is pretty weak. >

They’re showing off an F4? >

It is a pretty sick plane >

Yeah looks as good as it did over 60 years ago lol >

I can see the entrance, just collapse the entrance >

Mossad wants to know your location
Mossad knows your location >

Mossad enters the bidding process to build said bunkers* >

A single bombing sorte on the external runway would cripple the entire base.  Not to mention a few bunker buster bombs. >

Iran thinks they’re living in a GI Joe cartoon. >

aka "pre-buried" >

So is this whete the ayatollahs intend to hide when the people overthrow them? >

This is the exact plot of Top Gun: Maverick >

So like... why? I mean genuinely this one baffles me. Alright let's say that shit goes down and there is a war. Pretty much guaranteed US and its allies knows of most if not all locations of underground bases. And let's use the one in the video as an example. So now they are protected from being bombed... wouldn't they just have to wreck the entrance and the jets would be utterly useless and unable to even leave?
I guess they are semi protected but I do not think this is as major of a deal as they make it out to be. >

Busy work is busy work, and it does not have to be the US forever.
It just depends i assume, and who does not love kick-backs ? >

dumb bastards dont understand we can just bomb the hell out of all the large entrances.  then what? >

We figured out how to bomb underground bases long ago.. in the Middle East actually.. >

I thought it was WWII, Germany used underground facilities to make V2 rockets. >

Just bomb the runway lmfao >

The more devious weapon against runways is things like the Durandal. Rather than cratering the runway which can be filled rather easily, they use a rocket motor to burrow a comparatively small warhead through the runway. It then detonates under the slab, lifting it 6-10 inches. Now, to fix the runway, your adversary First has to demolish the lifted slabs, repair the bedding, then re-pour the lost slabs. >

If you do not have modern birds, the rest does not matter. >

Hey guys, let's show off our secret bunker! >

So the Iranians don’t know about bunker busters? >

Man, it sure is a shame the western military planners have been designing weapons for this exact problem since WW2. >

About the only useful thing those Phantoms are going to do is turn a bunch of American and Israeli pilots into aces. >

I'm impressed, for sure Israeli P51 don't stand a chance against these >

Breaking News: “Israel to acquire a fleet of one Mig-21 in a bid to counter Iran’s airforce consisting of one operational F4.” >

“To keep it fair” >

I thought that they were too busy murdering their own citizens for an unveiling. >

Have they ever heard of bunker busters? >

Yup, Iran and other countries have been mixing fibers of various materials into concrete to gain more and more strength. >

I like that their tactic is and defense technology is invested into hiding in a hole in the ground. >

That’s cute. >

Here we see a Vietnam era “Double Ugly” fighter with its pilot “Throwback” and his RIO “Deadmeat” posing in what might, one day, be their grave.
How did that blocking of the straights of Hormuz go for you? >

I’ve seen this movie. >

Cave is a grave once you know where it is.  How can their government survive when so many people are protesting? >

i'm sure we knew >

Is this the plot to the next Top Gun movie? >

Look: We have dug this cool hole.