More Iran trouble
Anarchic Christians
05-12-2005, 16:22
Well the russkies just sold a bunch of SAM's to Iran, this'll spice things up...
(no link yet, breaking news on BBC news 24)
Non Aligned States
05-12-2005, 16:29
SAMs are trouble for Iran or allow Iran to make trouble? Hasn't Iran been buying Russian armamants including SAMs for a long time now?
Anarchic Christians
05-12-2005, 16:33
SAMs are trouble for Iran or allow Iran to make trouble? Hasn't Iran been buying Russian armamants including SAMs for a long time now?
Unfortunately the beeb switched to the new Pre-Budget report but the impression I got was that they were fairly important, My feeing is that there are going to be an issue with Israel (one of their election candidates wants to bomb Ira remember).
Deep Kimchi
05-12-2005, 16:34
SAMs are trouble for Iran or allow Iran to make trouble? Hasn't Iran been buying Russian armamants including SAMs for a long time now?
If Iraq's profligate spending on advanced French and Russian air defense radars, missiles, and launchers is any indication, I'd say that the Iranians were wasting their money.
During the Vietnam War, SAMs had a success rate of 2% - that is, for every 100 missiles fired they hit 2 aircraft - and that was in the days before serious stealth and serious electronic warfare.
Today, the success rate of Russian and French-built air defense equipment against US aircraft is abysmally low - more of a statistical anomaly than a success rate.
But go ahead and spend the money. It gives the US something to target in the event of a war.
The South Islands
05-12-2005, 16:36
If Iraq's profligate spending on advanced French and Russian air defense radars, missiles, and launchers is any indication, I'd say that the Iranians were wasting their money.
During the Vietnam War, SAMs had a success rate of 2% - that is, for every 100 missiles fired they hit 2 aircraft - and that was in the days before serious stealth and serious electronic warfare.
Today, the success rate of Russian and French-built air defense equipment against US aircraft is abysmally low - more of a statistical anomaly than a success rate.
But go ahead and spend the money. It gives the US something to target in the event of a war.
Those were first-generation SA-1's and SA-2's.
SAMs have improved greatly since then.
Canada-Quebec
05-12-2005, 16:39
Are you sure?
The Iraqi weapons during both Gulf wars weren't very effective? Or were they?
Deep Kimchi
05-12-2005, 16:40
Those were first-generation SA-1's and SA-2's.
SAMs have improved greatly since then.
Read my post. It's obvious that US advances in stealth, electronic warfare, anti-SAM tactics, and network-centric warfare have outstripped any gains in SAM technology.
Even when using the latest French radars, the latest Chinese fiber-optic networks and bistatic radar to try and defeat stealth, and the latest missiles from Russia, the hit rate is now so low that it is a statistical anomaly to hit a US aircraft - the US aircraft has to have made a serious mistake in order to get hit.
Pantycellen
05-12-2005, 16:44
I hate to tell you this but most of american warplanes are upgrades of ones from the 90s or 80s (hell some from well before that).
french technology is at least as good as that of the americans, the russians are not far behind.
and also surely if its a statistical anomaly to be able to shoot down your normal planes whats the point in stealth.........
Deep Kimchi
05-12-2005, 16:47
I hate to tell you this but most of american warplanes are upgrades of ones from the 90s or 80s (hell some from well before that).
french technology is at least as good as that of the americans, the russians are not far behind.
and also surely if its a statistical anomaly to be able to shoot down your normal planes whats the point in stealth.........
US citizens fully expect US forces to be able to prosecute a war with ZERO casualties. That is, even a statistical anomaly is bad press.
That's why our air force spends so much money on stealth and precision weapons - do more with less and lose far fewer aircraft.
That's also why we had the huge advances in body armor for infantry, and implemented network-centric warfare, so that even a squad in contact with the enemy can be assisted by virtually anyone in range. It's why our casualty rate in an insurgency is 1/8th of what it was in Vietnam, and why we're now able to force insurgents to use IEDs as their primary tactic because the insurgents never survive direct contact combat with US forces.
Non Aligned States
05-12-2005, 17:08
Even when using the latest French radars, the latest Chinese fiber-optic networks and bistatic radar to try and defeat stealth, and the latest missiles from Russia, the hit rate is now so low that it is a statistical anomaly to hit a US aircraft - the US aircraft has to have made a serious mistake in order to get hit.
Has there actually been a combined arms test that actually used all of those three variables in a single cohesive Air Defense network against US aircraft or is it all simulations?
@Deep Kimchi:
What missile were you referring to when you mentioned the 2% ratio?
I'm guessing the SA-2 and SA-3. It took about a year to develop the counter measures needed to reach the number you said (and it was worse to the point where they had more chance to fire them blind then trying to used the jammed radar).
Back to topic:
These are Tor M-1 systems. These things are capable of intercepting low flying cruise missiles or planes (low as between 10 meter and 6 kilometer with stated kill ratios of 90% or higher for planes, cruise missiles vary more due to smaller target starting at 60%).
The fuss with Israel:
Israel has been agitating against the building of the nuclear reactor in Iran. People were/are expecting Israel to do the same to the reactor as it did to the one that Iraq build. That is going to be harder to do with the plugging of the low level flight zone as about the only thing that can get in now is a stealth plane.