OSINT Group313

@flossybijou @Osinttechnical I bask in the glory of knowing that this dude replied, blocked me, and couldn’t be more incorrect in literally every single assertion that he made. It’s genuinely impressive to be that wrong.

The Americans have arguably one of the most diversified economies on Earth. Other than AI, they don’t really have any bubbles. The Iranian regime and the Persians as a people are very different. Iran funds the vast majority of its day to day expenditures within the state apparatus with direct energy industrial revenue. This isn’t some movie or video game. When you suddenly lose your primary ability to pay most of your armed men, it is, historically, not great for you. Avoiding that is generally strategically adviseable. Iran, as a state, is far more exposed right now than the US or even Israel is, by every single objective measurement possible, both economically and militarily.

Reports that Iranian forces successfully struck the Ras Laffan refinery in Qatar this evening, causing large fire. Iran warned that it would strike the facility just a few hours ago

I’m not sure what you mean “what’s the failover plan when the first drone hits?” They’ve been losing drone and missile launch infrastructure at a staggering pace because they can’t synchronize protection mechanisms due to decentralized C2. They’ll maintain an ability to fire for quite sometime, but no longer at a strategically useful scale

@OSINT_Group313 this is about military doctrine, not ai agents. but decentralized command without air cover is a wild gamble. what's the failover plan when the first drone hits?

The IRGC has lost centralized Command & Control (C2) and is acting in localized “mission type” orders mode (acting on general standing guidance). They do this while the combined US/Israeli forces have unquestionable air superiority. With the loss of C2 comes the loss of nation wide “shell game” tactics to protect the launchers themselves, which is the actual vital choke point for Iranian force projection. It also enables them to make terrible targeting decisions that exacerbate and accidentally amplify unintended strategic messages to those nations across the Arab world. So far, everything about this, seems to be going nearly exactly as the West would have hoped it would.

Every super power military admits risk. Only amateurish militaries pretend they’re invincible. Professionals manage risk in ways that still allow for the mission. There is no more helpless of a feeling than facing a military professional enough to mitigate virtually every risk you pose… while still bombing you

@OSINT_Group313 @Zagonel85 Yes. But then that is admission of risk.

There’s a rumor circulating that the USS Abraham Lincoln “retreated” due to an Iranian drone strike. This however, is false. The claim in the post—that the USS Abraham Lincoln was damaged by an Iranian strike and is retreating as a result—is false. While Iran has repeatedly made such assertions through the IRGC and state media since early March 2026, no verifiable evidence supports them, and U.S. military sources have consistently refuted the allegations as propaganda. The carrier's repositioning farther from Iran's coast appears to be a tactical decision rather than a forced retreat due to damage. Key Details on the Iranian Claims: - Iran's IRGC has claimed multiple times (starting around March 1, 2026) that missiles and/or drones struck the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Arabian Sea or near the Sea of Oman, roughly 340-350 km from Iranian borders. They allege this caused significant damage, rendered the ship non-operational, and forced it to withdraw over 1,000 km away, possibly toward the U.S. These claims often lack proof, with Iran occasionally referencing unverified videos or images. Some circulating footage purporting to show the carrier burning or under attack has been debunked as recycled from older conflicts, AI-generated, or sourced from video games like Arma 3. The specific satellite image in the post (from Chinese source @MizarVision) shows purported positions of U.S. carriers, including the Abraham Lincoln near Oman's coast at coordinates around 11.35°N, 46.91°E (in the Gulf of Aden area) and the USS Gerald R. Ford farther south in the Red Sea. It labels distances as ~1,100 km from previous positions, framing this as evidence of retreat after damage. However, the image doesn't prove damage—it only suggests relocation, which aligns with open-source tracking and U.S. operations. U.S. Response and Evidence: U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has categorically denied all Iranian claims, stating the missiles "didn't even come close" to the carrier, which remains fully operational and undamaged. They've released photos and videos showing the ship conducting normal operations, including aircraft launches, in the Arabian Sea as part of ongoing missions (e.g., Operation Epic Fury against Iranian targets). Recent U.S. Navy press releases contain no mentions of damage to the Abraham Lincoln or any retreat; instead, they highlight its role in strikes against Iran since late February 2026, including jet attacks and Tomahawk missile launches from escort ships like the USS Spruance. A related incident: Around March 12, 2026, a U.S. vessel fired on an Iranian ship that approached too close to the Abraham Lincoln (first with a deck gun, then Hellfire missiles from a helicopter). This was defensive, not evidence of carrier damage, and Iran's status on the vessel remains unclear. Why the Repositioning? The carrier's movement to ~1,100 km from Iran (near Oman's mountains) is likely strategic: U.S. carriers often operate outside direct missile threat ranges while their aircraft project power over hundreds of kilometers. This has been noted in real-time X posts and aligns with standard naval tactics during the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict, which escalated after U.S./Israeli strikes on Iranian leadership and facilities. Similar repositioning happened with the USS Gerald R. Ford in the Red Sea. No neutral or allied sources (e.g., from Israel, Saudi Arabia, or international fact-checkers) confirm damage. Iranian claims have shifted over time (from "sunk" to "damaged and retreating"), which CENTCOM calls "recycled lies." In summary, Iran's assertions seem designed to boost domestic morale amid heavy U.S. strikes on their infrastructure and military, but they lack substantiation. The Abraham Lincoln continues active duty in the region as of March 15, 2026.

@mpmr4321 @Zagonel85 Mitigating risk in a reasonable way is quite literally the mark of a mature and capable military. Taking unnecessary risk is a sign of a military that’s getting desperate

@Zagonel85 Cope. Further away, lower tempo. The USA would only choose to lower tempo if the risk of not doing so was unacceptable. IE they were forced.

Of what? The use of JDAM? lol We wouldn’t even have the stand off weapons inventory to hit the number of targets we already have, even if we wanted too, if we for some insane reason wanted to just do it all with SOW Not to mention it’s 100% against the US air way of war… and doctrine… and training… and planning norms, to keep using long range stand off. They become support weapons usually flying at distance on high value assets. Like, it would make absolutely zero sense.

@OSINT_Group313 @DanTalks1 Again, you are making assumptions here. I’m asking for visual confirmation per the above

This is FUCKING STUPID. "Iran can produce 5,000 drones per month" Yeah buddy and what happens if a B52 drops 70,000 pounds of explosives on the factory a few times. Then how many drones are they able to make?

@sling_007 @DanTalks1 While various stand off weapons have been used (and that’s wise for early phase IADS rollback), the vast majority of strikes across Iran now are JDAM or Hellfires coming off disposable MQ-9s. What do you think is dropping all these JDAMs?

@OSINT_Group313 @DanTalks1 Nope, this is simply unverified information

The US established air superiority very early on, and maintains it now in its localized areas (which it’s very clear are being systematically expanded over time). That being said, you don’t put a B-52 over a nation with modern pop up SAMs, even if you have air supremacy and think you’ve killed 100% of the SAMs. The US 5th Gen fighters are already doing plenty of stand-in strikes and the risk is far more tolerable

@DanTalks1 1) To date B52s are still firing stand off munitions, ie the U.S. has no air superiority 2) the only idiot is you for believing that all 5,000 drones are made in the same factory in a country 4 times the size of Afghanistan

Naval functional annihilation really just requires sinking all major surface and subsurface combatants and every significant mine laying capability. That’s almost already complete, and is extremely likely. Neutering the missile capability is mainly a numbers game. You have to destroy a large enough portion of the stockpile and (more importantly, by far) the launchers. Most importantly of all is the distributed chemical and manufacturing industrial base + research and tech departments that make up the production pipeline. The stockpile will be reduced but not destroyed, as too much is buried. Launchers likely already have been extremely highly degraded. This is important because without mass coordinated salvo capability, mass saturation attack tactics (Iran’s go to) simply isn’t militarily feasible. Although not stated in the goal, the US should also destroy all factories and industrial manufacturing and subcomponent elements of the long range Shahed production. All very possible from the air to sufficient levels to satisfy objective intents. The nuclear program may require some ground presence, although if chosen, with Iranian air defense in its current state and its missile and drone attack units so weakened, there’s virtually nothing Iran could do to fight anything off. It would be utter suicide, as you’d be approaching a small US ground presence with a huge armed air package overhead. It would be like the Syrian Wagner incident on steroids. US ground forces would likely never even need to fire.

@OSINT_Group313 @WarMonitor3 The big issue is those 3 objectives cannot truly be achieved without a ground invasion or nukes. Once the war is over all this can quickly be built back again. Ground invasion would require a draft an that’s political suicide Nuke is a bigger political suicide Check mate ?

Militarily the US operations in Iran so far have been a resounding success and anyone that says otherwise is not aware of the hard facts…

@ErriugaOge @WarMonitor3 A neutered Iran would not be able to speed run a nuke. They need a substantial conventional weapons shield to avoid their nuclear progress being halted again by force.

@WarMonitor3 I really don't know what to make of it. If the regime survives, they will speedrun a nuke Can Trump-Bibi force a Venezuela option, ie regime change lite, only through bombing campaigns? This is the main question.

On current pace it seems very likely that the US will meet 3 of their main goals: decimate the missile launch/production industry, functionally annihilate the navy, destroy the nuclear program. The goal about proxies is admittedly unlikely to ever see true fruition. Regime change is not a military objective of this operation, and is seen as a “nice to have”, and the likelihood of that is effectively unknown as of now. Although if I had to guess, I’d think it’s fairly unlikely to occur in totality.

@WarMonitor3 0 U.S objectives have been achieved so far. Thats like saying Vietnam is a success after a few months of bombing and high K/D ratio.

@Broncoclimber @ImperialBotFarm @calvinfroedge Sadly, 99.9% of the people commenting on this wouldn’t even understand the basics of what an SSO even is haha

@OSINT_Group313 @ImperialBotFarm @calvinfroedge people come out of the woodwork during events like this thinking the know more than folks in the industry. I’ve worked in geospatial for 20 years, had a guy try to tell me yesterday that Irans SSO sat can revisit a site 4x a day.

Guys look, the only possible reason for forcing US commercial satellite providers to implement 96 hour delays for the middle east is to hide what's going on *from the public* The Iranians are not using US commercial satellites for targeting

@RobMcNealy @calvinfroedge The idea that Iran does not use commercial imagery, to include US imagery, is fundamentally absurd. They lack access and as a result, use a mixture of everything available, all of which have their own sources pros/cons

@OSINT_Group313 @calvinfroedge Read better. He didn't say that they were.

@Maple_Hyperion @no_itsmyturn @presampleSam @SecWar The SecWar is referencing “precision gravity bombs”, he’s talking about JDAM that aren’t laser guided, not INS only variants. The US pumps out JDAM PGMs at a frankly insane rate. Now if this rate of strikes was maintained for several years, we might start to see minor shortages.

@no_itsmyturn @presampleSam @SecWar Gravity bombs implies carpet bombing. Which is war crimes. Israel’s favourite pastime.

How can we sell 12,000 bombs if we are running out of munitions?

@liuwen_52 @taokami3 @calvinfroedge You’re describing SATNAV for PGMs. You may have accidentally responded to the wrong comment considering it’s totally off topic

@OSINT_Group313 @taokami3 @calvinfroedge 中俄卫星导航系统深度兼容（北斗与格洛纳斯）：2025年11月，两国签署了卫星导航领域合作路线图等15份文件。合作核心是统一军用信号接口标准，使两国武器能无缝切换使用；同时加快在对方境内互建地面站，联合研发抗干扰导航模块。此举旨在实现全球无死角信号覆盖，提升电子战下的生存能力。

Yes. There is currently no reporting that would lead anyone to objectively conclude that Iran is conclusively not using US commercial sensing for targeting. That’s why this original post is so clearly wrong. Are they likely receiving aid? Yes. Is it likely very limited? Yes. Do we know for sure? No. Would it be beneficial to utilize US commercial to fill gaps even if aid is given? Absolutely.

@OSINT_Group313 @calvinfroedge How would you even know what they have access to? One can suspect Russian and Chinese assets, but so far as I know neither one is talking.

@Zambodedo @calvinfroedge Way to tell me you have no experience in this subject I can absolutely guarantee I know far more about this topic than you do.

@OSINT_Group313 @calvinfroedge The future is now, old man

I’m deeply experienced in the field of space based collection. I understand the basic simpleton approach is to think that China and Russia have massive intel sharing agreements and that revisit rates for commercial are near constant… but that’s simply not a reality for a nation like Iran

@OSINT_Group313 @calvinfroedge Sweetie. Wake tf up.

@taokami3 @calvinfroedge Russia has dramatically better access than Iran, but even then, only like 5% of what China has. Either way, the original idea that US commercial collection was not used or beneficial to Iran is fundamentally absurd, at a basic orbital math level.

@OSINT_Group313 @calvinfroedge Russia does, and they're providing that intel to Iran