NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/20/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Rockets.php
Iran is capable of firing 11,000 rockets into enemy bases within the first minute after any possible attack, state-run television quoted a top Revolutionary Guards Corps commander as saying Saturday.

Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, the missile commander of the Guards, said Iran has identified all enemy positions and was prepared to respond in less than a minute to any possible attack.

So, more warmongering from both sides now do you think? I am starting to think now without sounding partisan that a war with Iran will depend on the result of the Presidential election...

Within a minute of any attack on Iran? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Erm. That sounds outstandingly ludicrous, I'll be honest. 11,000 rockets within a single minute?

Nah.

Not all rockets are V2 models...

How many will actually get there and detonate?

Assuming everything goes perfectly and no one on any side of the process fails...then sure.

Also only lamers spam V2s

At least they're not spamming Hydralisks.

I like to spam Time Stop. Failing that, zerglings.

Click Stand;13154073']Also only lamers spam V2s

I know. If Nazi Germany didn't keep on spamming V2s then Britain, U.S.A and Russia would have agreed to play again.

I know. If Nazi Germany didn't keep on spamming V2s then Britain, U.S.A and Russia would have agreed to play again.

And thus Vietnam.

BTW tunnel networks are for |-|4x

Not all rockets are V2 models...

I was refering to the Ra2 tactic...

Within 1 minute?

I say bullshit and issue a red card to Iran for putting out this bullshit.

Within 1 minute?

I say bullshit and issue a red card to Iran for putting out this bullshit.

Really? I mean how long does it take to push a button?

I doubt that the US could pull off a 1967 style air attack and take out the Iranian airforce and missiles etc, during the war with Iraq tried this exact tactic and he was at the height of his power, he had no shortage of aircraft yet he didn't manage to take any planes out in the first strike because the Iranian airfields are so massive, well reinforced and spread out over the country, they are actually American designed.

Really? I mean how long does it take to push a button?

Not long but the question is...how are their launch systems arranged? I mean. If the US and Allies launch an attack, don't you think Command and Control systems are going to be the first to go? Not to mention any known missile sites. So yea...

I doubt that the US could pull off a 1967 style air attack and take out the Iranian airforce and missiles etc,

Iran has an airforce? [/sarcasm]

during the war with Iraq tried this exact tactic and he was at the height of his power, he had no shortage of aircraft yet he didn't manage to take any planes out in the first strike because the Iranian airfields are so massive, well reinforced and spread out over the country, they are actually American designed.

Shall we look at the type of planes and ammunition that Iraq was using?

TheUS does not have enough troops to invade iran

Really? I mean how long does it take to push a button?

Even solid fuel missiles take time to go from ready to launch. Unless the launchers are already deployed, pointed in the right direction, and the missile crews constantly hovering with their fingers over the button, longer than a minute.

Even the so-called minutmen missiles take longer than a minute to fire. Well, you could fire it under a minute, but that would mean smacking it into the silo doors.

Not long but the question is...how are their launch systems arranged? I mean. If the US and Allies launch an attack, don't you think Command and Control systems are going to be the first to go? Not to mention any known missile sites. So yea...
Well that's the question isn't it, the US are in an impossible political situation, they may be able to get away with just taking out the nuclear facilities and then withdrawing from the range of a counterattack to avoid escalation to a major war, but of course that would not happen because the US is not going to evacuate troops etc from Iraq and the Persian Gulf states, so Iran will always have missile targets, that's also not mentioning that an airstrike would put US carriers and support vessels in range of Iranian subs and anti-ship missiles and deployed torpedoes like the hood, and Iran shows every intention of escalating any strike into a war.



Iran has an airforce? [/sarcasm]

About 315 fighter/strike aircraft I believe, wiki will confirm this. Most of them US aircraft after the Shah went on an oil shopping spree before being deposed, plus some other Russian/foreign and domestic aircraft.

Shall we look at the type of planes and ammunition that Iraq was using?
Well I am not exactly sure, but I am sure it could be looked up, but I am thinking that after 8 years they could have got it right if the problem was just aircraft class and ammunition, I mean during the war with Iran Saddam was being supplied by the Europeans, US, everyone, and he could just buy the stuff and put it on debt.

TheUS does not have enough troops to invade iran

Not without a draft anyway, and I can't see that going down well. I mean Vietnam was popular at the beginning, a war with Iran seems largely unpopular even now before it has (or will) begun.

Well that's the question isn't it, the US are in an impossible political situation, they may be able to get away with just taking out the nuclear facilities and then withdrawing from the range of a counterattack to avoid escalation to a major war, but of course that would not happen because the US is not going to evacuate troops etc from Iraq and the Persian Gulf states, so Iran will always have missile targets, that's also not mentioning that an airstrike would put US carriers and support vessels in range of Iranian subs and anti-ship missiles and deployed torpedoes like the hood, and Iran shows every intention of escalating any strike into a war.

First of all...the Iranian subs will not exactly be a problem because the US has these things called subs and sonor as well. As to the carriers, will they be in danger? It depends on where they take up station come attacking. Not to mention the anti-missile systems that the USN deploys is pretty good.

About 315 fighter/strike aircraft I believe, wiki will confirm this. Most of them US aircraft after the Shah went on an oil shopping spree before being deposed, plus some other Russian/foreign and domestic aircraft.

How many of them can actually fly?

Well I am not exactly sure, but I am sure it could be looked up, but I am thinking that after 8 years they could have got it right if the problem was just aircraft class and ammunition, I mean during the war with Iran Saddam was being supplied by the Europeans, US, everyone, and he could just buy the stuff and put it on debt.

Also have to remember technology of the day plus what we were willing to give them.

Originally posted by Andaras Prime
I was refering to the Ra2 tactic...
THAT GAME IS BITCHIN.
I'd always use the Allies though.

How many of them can actually fly?

Oh boy.... I don't think I will reply if your going to keep us this petty dogmatism all the way...

Oh boy.... I don't think I will reply if your going to keep us this petty dogmatism all the way...

HA! It makes a difference if you are going to say it is impossible to knock out the RIAF.

Not without a draft anyway, and I can't see that going down well. I mean Vietnam was popular at the beginning, a war with Iran seems largely unpopular even now before it has (or will) begun.


Especially with a Democratic controlled Congress, we probably won't have an authorization for force.

Not without a draft anyway, and I can't see that going down well. I mean Vietnam was popular at the beginning, a war with Iran seems largely unpopular even now before it has (or will) begun.

Don't worry, there's virtually no possibility of an offensive war with Iran. Why? Because the American people are far too opposed to such a concept, the logistical capabilities of our military and the fact that there is a substantial dissident community in Iran, whom we'd much rather not piss off with military action. It makes far more sense just to play good cop/bad cop for the next couple of years.

Don't worry, there's virtually no possibility of an offensive war with Iran. Why? Because the American people are far too opposed to such a concept, the logistical capabilities of our military and the fact that there is a substantial dissident community in Iran, whom we'd much rather not piss off with military action. It makes far more sense just to play good cop/bad cop for the next couple of years.

Well the US should take note from the Iraq-Iran War, before it the Revolution was largely on shaky ground, but the invasion and war energized the Iranian Youth and united the whole country to mobilize, if the US invaded even the dissidents would fight the US because they would have no choice if invaded.

Iran's 315 aircraft claim is BS.

Aoubt 80 of those 315 are 30 year old F-14As. Due to parts shortage and cannibalism of airframes for parts, it is estimated that 3 are airworthy. The highest estimate of F-14s at flight status is 5, and that was a few years ago.

The rest of the air force is in worse shape. I doubt Iran can put up even 100 fighters. Even the other 4th generation fighters they have are in poor shape with poorly trained crews.

Iran's 315 aircraft claim is BS.

Aoubt 80 of those 315 are 30 year old F-14As. Due to parts shortage and cannibalism of airframes for parts, it is estimated that 3 are airworthy. The highest estimate of F-14s at flight status is 5, and that was a few years ago.

The rest of the air force is in worse shape. I doubt Iran can put up even 100 fighters. Even the other 4th generation fighters they have are in poor shape with poorly trained crews.
If you dispute my claim, take it up with wikipedia not me. Also please prove and provide evidence for your claims (no right-wing Zionazi propaganda please). I think you you won't because you made it up...

If you dispute my claim, take it up with wikipedia not me. Also please prove and provide evidence for your claims (no right-wing Zionazi propaganda please). I think you you won't because you made it up...

Wikipedia just lists official number of airframes, not number that are actually flyable.

You are someone who has a complete lack of common sense. You just buy numbers spoon fed to you by a user edited source like it is the gospel. You have no idea how aircraft work and that the F-14 Tomcat is one of the biggest hangar queens in the history of fighter aircraft. It is a complex aircraft with far too many movable parts which wear out quickly and need replacement. With the supply chain cut off, the Iranians had to cannibalize most of their surviving F-14s.

This is on top of other issues they can't fix. They have the old underpowered F-14A with the P&W engines. They aren't built for fighters and will have fan blades rip off or go into a spin inducing stall if exposed to high G forces. You know nothing of the topic you are talking about so I won't go into further details about how the P&W engines can't perform simple maneuvers such as a forward slip.

This source does a good job breaking down military equipment's abilities.
http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007918225711.asp

Restoring old F-14s doesn't even help much. The engines and airframes can only take so many hours in air before the stress just rips them apart. There is also the fact these F-14s can't carry the AIM-54. The F-14 was designed around that single missile and Grumman technicians sabotaged the systems so their RADAR systems weren't compatible with the missiles. As a result, the F-14s are carrying missiles which don't work well with their systems.

The rest of the Iranian AF is old garbage which was in service with the US since before Vietnam. They use F-5s and F-4s. Those planes are crap. They were good enough for the US, UK, and Israel 40 years ago, but are useless today. The only thing an F-5 is good for today is in the T-38 variant where it can serve as a good jet trainer. It can't fight worth a lick.

The MiG-29 is the only useful plane Iran has. It isn't even that good. Look at its combat record in 1991. Russia doesn't even use them much in their own AF. They decided to go with the Flanker over the Fulcrum and use the Fulcrum as their export plane.



Oh and thanks for demonstrating yet another case of your blatant anti-semitism. A really pathetic attempt to try to portray the EBIL J00z controlling sources of information and the media. About what I expect from a Protocols reading clown.

Oh and thanks for demonstrating yet another case of your blatant anti-semitism. A really pathetic attempt to try to portray the EBIL J00z controlling sources of information and the media. About what I expect from a Protocols reading clown.
By its nature, Zionism concentrates ultra-nationalism, chauvinism and racial intolerance, excuse for territorial occupation and annexation, military opportunism, cult of political promiscuousness and irresponsibility, demagogy and ideological diversion, dirty tactics and perfidy... Absurd are attempts of Zionist ideologists to present criticizing them, or condemning the aggressive politics of the Israel's ruling circles, as antisemitic... We call on all Soviet citizens: workers, peasants, representatives of intelligentsia: take active part in exposing Zionism, strongly rebuke its endeavors; social scientists: activate scientific research to criticize reactionary core of that ideology and aggressive character of its political practice; writers, artists, journalists: fuller expose anti-populace and anti-humane diversionary character of propaganda and politics of Zionism.

Also, the rest of your post was anti-Iranian racism and right-wing garbage trying to say the Iranians are primitive and lower than Americans and Jews.

The US does not have enough troops to invade iran

Or even Andorra, for that matter.

Also, the rest of your post was anti-Iranian racism and right-wing garbage trying to say the Iranians are primitive and lower than Americans and Jews.

Wow you pulled that shit out of your ass so it must be true. Come on I'm laughing right now. Give me more.

Serve your duty as court jester please. I need more stuff for my book of funny quotes I'm working on.

Oh and ignore those several paragraphs of fact I posted too while you're at it. It looks like your paragraph was some sort of Soviet decree. Needless to say the Soviet government was anti-semitic and helped Hitler round up Jews until June 1941. Then the Soviets just sent them to Siberia.

Oh and please tell me how the inability of an F-14A P&W engines to perform a simple forward slip (let alone a side slip) is racist in somehow.

Wow your post is going in my hall of fame of worst posts on this forum. That's a hard one to crack too. You should be honored.

Wow you pulled that shit out of your ass so it must be true. Come on I'm laughing right now. Give me more.

Serve your duty as court jester please. I need more stuff for my book of funny quotes I'm working on.

Oh and ignore those several paragraphs of fact I posted too while you're at it.

Are you kidding, I should dig up all your comments on this, you have a fanatical racist hatred towards ethnic Persians and Arabs.

Are you kidding, I should dig up all your comments on this, you have a fanatical racist hatred towards ethnic Persians and Arabs.
LOL go ahead. I guess I hate all Persians because I think the F-14A is an underpowered piece of shit (For the record, I love the F-14A+, B, and D).

If the USA tries to attack Iran as well, they will undoubtedly get their ass handed to them.

Somebody really has to do something in that country to stop cowboy presidents from picking fights with everyone in the middle east.

Attacking Iran would finish isolating them from the few allies they have left. The USA neither has the manpower to do it themselves, nor the clout necessary to convince the rest of the western world it would be a good idea. And at any rate, Iran is armed by Russia and China, and has more than enough weapons to make a LOT of US shit go boom, including some couple-billion-dollar aircraft carriers.

No, seriously, any military move against Iran would be pure suicide. Diplomacy is the only way to approach this.

And I'm not even touching the fact that uranium enrichment is perfectly legal by the terms of the non-proliferation treaty Iran has signed.

If the USA tries to attack Iran as well, they will undoubtedly get their ass handed to them.

Somebody really has to do something in that country to stop cowboy presidents from picking fights with everyone in the middle east.

Attacking Iran would finish isolating them from the few allies they have left. The USA neither has the manpower to do it themselves, nor the clout necessary to convince the rest of the western world it would be a good idea. And at any rate, Iran is armed by Russia and China, and has more than enough weapons to make a LOT of US shit go boom, including some couple-billion-dollar aircraft carriers.
Attacking Iran with ground troops would be a bad idea, but our CVNs are safe. Iran has a ton of C-802s, but they are cheap Chinese knockoffs of the US RGM-84 Harpoon missile, which is a total piece of shit and was stopgap weapon. The Russians make a ton of good SSMs, but the Iranians choose to by poor Chinese ones. Our Aegis system can stop the good Russian ones with great success. I would laugh at the poor performance a C-802 would have on an Aegis ship.

When Hezbollah used one to hit a tiny 1,500 ton ship (very small by warship standards as the piece of garbage OHP class ships are still 3,800 tons). That ship barely looked damaged. If you want to see what a good missile can do to a ship, look at the Stark.

In other words, our CVBGs are safe.

Oh and AP, why don't you try to bring up facts in this debate. I posted several paragraphs of facts about the performance of aircraft. You just pulled something out of your ass like OMG Ebil J00 propaganda! HEIL HITLER!

If the USA tries to attack Iran as well, they will undoubtedly get their ass handed to them.

Somebody really has to do something in that country to stop cowboy presidents from picking fights with everyone in the middle east.

Attacking Iran would finish isolating them from the few allies they have left. The USA neither has the manpower to do it themselves, nor the clout necessary to convince the rest of the western world it would be a good idea. And at any rate, Iran is armed by Russia and China, and has more than enough weapons to make a LOT of US shit go boom, including some couple-billion-dollar aircraft carriers.

No, seriously, any military move against Iran would be pure suicide. Diplomacy is the only way to approach this.

And I'm not even touching the fact that uranium enrichment is perfectly legal by the terms of the non-proliferation treaty Iran has signed.

While I agree completely that there are better ways of dealing with Iran than war (though, it'd be a hard case to make me encourage violent action between countries), if the USA did go to war with Iran it'd more than likely have to rely completely upon bombing the everliving shit out of it and ignore any kind of semblance of a rebuilding phase. A morally acceptable route to take? Obviously not. Effective? Unfortunately, it could be argued in the affirmative.

Attacking Iran with ground troops would be a bad idea, but our CVNs are safe. Iran has a ton of C-802s, but they are cheap Chinese knockoffs of the US RGM-84 Harpoon missile, which is a total piece of shit and was stopgap weapon. The Russians make a ton of good SSMs, but the Iranians choose to by poor Chinese ones. Our Aegis system can stop the good Russian ones with great success. I would laugh at the poor performance a C-802 would have on an Aegis ship.

When Hezbollah used one to hit a tiny 1,500 ton ship (very small by warship standards as the piece of garbage OHP class ships are still 3,800 tons). That ship barely looked damaged. If you want to see what a good missile can do to a ship, look at the Stark.

In other words, our CVBGs are safe.

Your blatant pro-American/Israeliism and warmongering is disgusting.

Also I am still waiting for your evidence thanks, all I have seen thus far is pro-US/Israel far-right-wing propaganda sites.

If the USA tries to attack Iran as well, they will undoubtedly get their ass handed to them.

Somebody really has to do something in that country to stop cowboy presidents from picking fights with everyone in the middle east.

Attacking Iran would finish isolating them from the few allies they have left. The USA neither has the manpower to do it themselves, nor the clout necessary to convince the rest of the western world it would be a good idea. And at any rate, Iran is armed by Russia and China, and has more than enough weapons to make a LOT of US shit go boom, including some couple-billion-dollar aircraft carriers.

No, seriously, any military move against Iran would be pure suicide. Diplomacy is the only way to approach this.

And I'm not even touching the fact that uranium enrichment is perfectly legal by the terms of the non-proliferation treaty Iran has signed.


LMAO

That is a pretty funny one... We found one who wants to play the body count game. We don't lose this one. A US or Isreali lead attack on Iran would start with days and weeks of bombing first hard then soft targets. Then a blockade would follow.

And who loses when a country has a blockade against them?
The poor people, but I guess that is what happens when you allow people like that to run your country.

If Iran wants to have nuclear anything, they are taking a huge risk at having their country destoryed. If they want it that bad, I respect that. But when the bombs are dropping and everyone is pissed. Don't say that you didn't see it coming.

For the record I have had nothing but good expirences with Iranian people.

...Zionazi...
:D Classic.

In other words, our CVBGs are safe.

I wouldn't put money on that. Human wave tactics don't work well against machine gun positions because let's face it, humans are slow and fragile.

Missile wave tactics on the other hand, are a different story. Even if they're cheap knockoffs. We're talking missiles with on average +600kp/h cruise speeds and warhead sizes ranging from 200-500kg and greater. From maximum intercept range to impact, we're looking at what, 30 seconds or less?

I don't know how many missiles Iran has, or how many launchers other than a whole lot of them. But I do know that while the fleets are sitting in the gulf, they're in range of almost all of them.

I'll admit a first strike by the US with the advantage of surprise ala Pearl Harbor could conceivably knock out much of Iran's ability to strike back, but you'd better get used to not getting any oil out of the Middle East by ship.

If it's a first strike by Iran, or if the US doesn't take out their coastal defense ability, expect a heavy surprise attack using whatever tricks they can think of. Disguised attack boats as pleasure craft. Prop planes loaded with explosives flying under false IFFs transponders. The works.

It won't be crippling losses, but it will be heavy.

Also, Iran has been buying new generation Russian anti-shipping missiles of late.

I wouldn't put money on that. Human wave tactics don't work well against machine gun positions because let's face it, humans are slow and fragile.

Missile wave tactics on the other hand, are a different story. Even if they're cheap knockoffs. We're talking missiles with on average +600kp/h cruise speeds and warhead sizes ranging from 200-500kg and greater. From maximum intercept range to impact, we're looking at what, 30 seconds or less?

I don't know how many missiles Iran has, or how many launchers other than a whole lot of them. But I do know that while the fleets are sitting in the gulf, they're in range of almost all of them.

I'll admit a first strike by the US with the advantage of surprise ala Pearl Harbor could conceivably knock out much of Iran's ability to strike back, but you'd better get used to not getting any oil out of the Middle East by ship.

If it's a first strike by Iran, or if the US doesn't take out their coastal defense ability, expect a heavy surprise attack using whatever tricks they can think of. Disguised attack boats as pleasure craft. Prop planes loaded with explosives flying under false IFFs transponders. The works.

It won't be crippling losses, but it will be heavy.

Also, Iran has been buying new generation Russian anti-shipping missiles of late.

Don't bother, IDF has his 'US/Israel=good, Arabs/Iran=bad' racist tint he views everything through, and he can only defend it by resorting to linking right-wing websites.

Don't bother, IDF has his 'US/Israel=good, Arabs/Iran=bad' racist tint he views everything through, and he can only defend it by resorting to linking right-wing websites.

My post is now all the poorer in value for having you quote it, much less support it.

Please do not insult me in such a manner again.

Or even Andorra, for that matter.

Vatican City, on the other hand...

LMAO
If Iran wants to have nuclear anything, they are taking a huge risk at having their country destoryed. If they want it that bad, I respect that. But when the bombs are dropping and everyone is pissed. Don't say that you didn't see it coming.here is a map to help you plan the carpet bombing of countries trying to get nuclear power plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_power_stations.png

Also, the rest of [IDF's] post was anti-Iranian racism and right-wing garbage trying to say the Iranians are primitive and lower than Americans and Jews.
No, it wasn't.

It quite plainly stated that the Persian Airforce is rubbish, and due to supply problems, they have very few decent planes to fly - because of this lack of parts, they also don't want to spend too long training, because if a war broke out and their remaining F-14s then needed repairs using parts which had all been used up, they'd be absolutely fucked, essentially.

Well that's the question isn't it, the US are in an impossible political situation, they may be able to get away with just taking out the nuclear facilities and then withdrawing from the range of a counterattack to avoid escalation to a major war, but of course that would not happen because the US is not going to evacuate troops etc from Iraq and the Persian Gulf states, so Iran will always have missile targets, that's also not mentioning that an airstrike would put US carriers and support vessels in range of Iranian subs and anti-ship missiles and deployed torpedoes like the hood, and Iran shows every intention of escalating any strike into a war.
Aye, because I'm sure that a US carrier battlegroup is absolutely pissing itself in the face of a few cold-war era submarines, and anti-shipping missiles that a properly trained crew with point-defence missiles and turrets is going to have oh so much trouble shooting down.

I don't think it'd be the US making the airstrikes on the Persian targets, it's far more likely to be Israel, who have more local knowldge and have done this kind of thing before in Iraq.

That might not be technically allowed or anything, but I don't think that anyone is going to do much to stop it happening.
About 315 fighter/strike aircraft I believe, wiki will confirm this. Most of them US aircraft after the Shah went on an oil shopping spree before being deposed, plus some other Russian/foreign and domestic aircraft.
The issue with that is that their crews have little experience, and, more to the point, they're not very well maintained, seeing as they can't get spare parts for the US stuff, and the Russians aren't too likely to get involved in that particular mess themselves, what with relations being extremely tense between them and the US over various military and Arctic rights-based disputes.

Your blatant pro-American/Israeliism and warmongering is disgusting.

Also I am still waiting for your evidence thanks, all I have seen thus far is pro-US/Israel far-right-wing propaganda sites.
Erm, he's given you the military facts of that matter, which show why it's quite plausible that the US could take out missile sites and, more importantly, command and control sites, with relative ease from the air.

All you're doing is claiming that proving that Iran's airforce is a thorougly outmoded force with little chance of survival against a properly trained and equipped one is somehow anti-Persian, which it isn't.

I completely agree with IDF and yootopia... completely.

I completely agree with IDF and yootopia... completely.
Sarcastic statement or not, we have a point. Iran can't hold off an attack from a proper military attack from the air.

On land is a different matter, but in terms of decapitating their command and control elements, a strike by air is the best method of doing so.

I am seriously loling at the blatantly pro-US/Israel right-wing garbage they keep spewing out continuously without any real proof. I am will continue loling...

I am seriously loling at the blatantly pro-US/Israel right-wing garbage they keep spewing out continuously without any real proof. I am will continue loling...
I'm not right wing, nor am I particularly pro US, and certainly not pro-Israel.

I just have some level of knowledge about military affairs, and as IDF has provided the proof and I've given a more layman's explanation of why Iran can't really win a conflict, you've simply continued to say that we're some kind of evil 'Zionazis', as you so eloquently put it.

The fact that Iran would get its arse handed to it in a situation like a surgical airstrike is essentially a given. They have less than 10 already-sabotaged 'working' F-14s, a bunch of F-4s, which are crap and an F-5E knock-offs called the Azarakhsh, of which 6 have been built, with roughly 10 a year to be produced, and a handful of Fulcrums with aircrews given too little training due to parts worries, compared to the IDF's air force, which is extremely well-trained and combat-experienced, and the USAF, which might not be such an expert force as the IDF, certainly has a lot of muscle behind it.

They wouldn't have a chance.

I'm not right wing, nor am I particularly pro US, and certainly not pro-Israel.

I just have some level of knowledge about military affairs, and as IDF has provided the proof and I've given a more layman's explanation of why Iran can't really win a conflict, you've simply continued to say that we're some kind of evil 'Zionazis', as you so eloquently put it.

The fact that Iran would get its arse handed to it in a situation like a surgical airstrike is essentially a given. They have less than 10 already-sabotaged 'working' F-14s, a bunch of F-4s, which are crap and an F-5E knock-offs called the Azarakhsh, of which 6 have been built, with roughly 10 a year to be produced, and a handful of Fulcrums with aircrews given too little training due to parts worries, compared to the IDF's air force, which is extremely well-trained and combat-experienced, and the USAF, which might not be such an expert force as the IDF, certainly has a lot of muscle behind it.

They wouldn't have a chance.

I see no evidence, I see more propaganda.

i really wasn't being sarcastic, i agree with you guys 100%!!!

I see no evidence, I see more propaganda.
Yes, that's because you're utterly blinded by a particularly zealous form of anti-Israeli sentiment, where the Arab League and Iran can't possibly lose to those bastardly Zionazis, right?

The fact that you are ignoring :

a) The fact that Iran hasn't flown a single combat mission in about 20 years

b) The fact that the amount of operational aircraft in Iran is probably under about 1/3 of its total aircraft, and that it has very few modern fighter aircraft

c) The fact that the Israeli airforce is pretty good at targetted strikes on very small objects, as its assassinations of Palestinian diplomats in their cars has shown (sadly)

and last, but not least

d) The fact that the Israelis are backed up by the US, which has a carrier group in the Persian Gulf full of airmen who have been flying missions over Iraq for basically 4 solid years


Shows that you are flying in the face of the truth.
i really wasn't being sarcastic, i agree with you guys 100%!!!
Oh, fair enough.

I see no evidence, I see more propaganda.

IDF, Andaras Prime, right now neither of you are behaving reasonably. "You're an evil jackbooted Nazi thug!" "You're an evil jackbooted Zionist thug!" If you cannot debate sensibly - Hell, if you cannot read each others' posts for actual points - you should put each other on ignore.

Alternatively, I could forumban both of you for a day or two, but I'm sure you don't want that. Chill.

~ Tsar the Mod.

It sounds like they're RP'ers on Nationstates, attempting to slip a GodMod under the radar...

I see no evidence, I see more propaganda.
Jesus Christ, AP, come on. The arguments are there, and you have no counter, and instead of simply conceeding defeat like a man, you instead claim everything is propaganda?

- Iran hasn't flown a combat mission since 1988. This is just true.

- Only about 1/3 of Persian aircraft are in running order. This is an educated guess, and is likely to be around the truth.

- The Israeli Air Force has taken out many small targets - Iraqi nuclear reactor sticks in my mind, as do countless assassinations of Hamas leaders in their cars, this is obviously true.

- There is a US carrier group in the Persian Gulf, this is true, as is the fact that they fly almost continually over Iraq on missions, and the USAF would help Israel in the kind of situation where Iran is going to launch 11,000 rockets at Israel if their command and control and also rocket sites aren't hit.

Give it up, AP.

Jesus Christ, AP, come on. The arguments are there, and you have no counter, and instead of simply conceeding defeat like a man, you instead claim everything is propaganda?

- Iran hasn't flown a combat mission since 1988. This is just true.

- Only about 1/3 of Persian aircraft are in running order. This is an educated guess, and is likely to be around the truth.

- The Israeli Air Force has taken out many small targets - Iraqi nuclear reactor sticks in my mind, as do countless assassinations of Hamas leaders in their cars, this is obviously true.

- There is a US carrier group in the Persian Gulf, this is true, as is the fact that they fly almost continually over Iraq on missions, and the USAF would help Israel in the kind of situation where Iran is going to launch 11,000 rockets at Israel if their command and control and also rocket sites aren't hit.

Give it up, AP.

No, your points are totally subjective, you haven't sourced a single claim you have made with unbiased evidence, you could have fabricated them all up for all we know. Sorry but I know your right-wing and partisan, and it's in your interest to look on things from a pro-US/Israel slant, I actually believe you made this all up or at least got it from a biased source. You have proven nothing except your right-wing bias.

AP, at this point any source Yootopia provides you wouldn't bother to even read before decrying it as "biased". I, personally, could dredge up a long list of sources backing up everything Yoo and IDF have been saying, but they're almost all from American and Israeli sources, so of course they'd all be filthy "ZioNazi" lies.

I don't get why some leftists like yourself try to defend contemptible politicians like Ahmidijad, Castro and Hugo Chavez from the equally contemptible American and Israeli politicans just because they're in opposition to the American's. I'm a leftist, and I oppose all of them! Oh wait, I bet I've probably branded myself a traitor to the revolution and a zionist now.

AP, at this point any source Yootopia provides you wouldn't bother to even read before decrying it as "biased". I, personally, could dredge up a long list of sources backing up everything Yoo and IDF have been saying, but they're almost all from American and Israeli sources, so of course they'd all be filthy "ZioNazi" lies.

I don't get why some leftists like yourself try to defend contemptible politicians like Ahmidijad, Castro and Hugo Chavez from the equally contemptible American and Israeli politicans just because they're in opposition to the American's. I'm a leftist, and I oppose all of them! Oh wait, I bet I've probably branded myself a traitor to the revolution and a zionist now.

If your a leftist, you seem to have forgotten about the 'democratic centralist' principle.

No, your points are totally subjective, you haven't sourced a single claim you have made with unbiased evidence, you could have fabricated them all up for all we know. Sorry but I know your right-wing and partisan, and it's in your interest to look on things from a pro-US/Israel slant, I actually believe you made this all up or at least got it from a biased source. You have proven nothing except your right-wing bias.

The presence of a US carrier group is subjective? Damn.

The Israeli air force's destruction of small targets is subjective? AP, I don't know if you realise, but you just inadvertently defended Israel. Oh noes! :eek:

Iran's 315 aircraft claim is BS.

Aoubt 80 of those 315 are 30 year old F-14As. Due to parts shortage and cannibalism of airframes for parts, it is estimated that 3 are airworthy. The highest estimate of F-14s at flight status is 5, and that was a few years ago.

The rest of the air force is in worse shape. I doubt Iran can put up even 100 fighters. Even the other 4th generation fighters they have are in poor shape with poorly trained crews.

And that was the point I was making with AP but yet...AP does not ever see the whole story.

No, your points are totally subjective, you haven't sourced a single claim you have made with unbiased evidence, you could have fabricated them all up for all we know. Sorry but I know your right-wing and partisan, and it's in your interest to look on things from a pro-US/Israel slant, I actually believe you made this all up or at least got it from a biased source. You have proven nothing except your right-wing bias.
- Iran hasn't flown any combat missions since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. This is absolutely true, as they have been involved in no other wars since then, and wouldn't want to get their limited fighter force involved in a conflict where they would stand to lose any without serious returns.

- The fact that only around 1 in 3 Persian aircraft are in running order is dirived from the statistics from GlobalSecurity.org, which takes Iran's own statistics on the matter. Their own conservative efforts put readiness at about 50%, but then if you take about 1/3 off for bias (which one should basically always do with such things), then you get a figure of about 1/3 readiness.

Their aircraft essentially given to them when the Iraqi airforce landed have a supposedly around 80% readiness status, but due to their low number and likely sabotage, I'm a bit suspicious of this figure.

- Israel has taken out many small targets. It just has. The whole air campaign over Palestine revolves around this, as did the whole Operation Opera thing. Take a look at your beloved wiki -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

- There is a US carrier group in the Persian Gulf. Again, this is just true. The fact that the USAF has backed up the Israeli Air Force before and will again is also present and clear.

If your a leftist, you seem to have forgotten about the 'democratic centralist' principle.

Then do go on and elaborate for me please. Just because I consider myself left-wing, I have an obligation to defend authoritarian leftist leaders who violate the basic human rights of thier citizens in order to achieve thier goals for thier societies?

Also, the rest of your post was anti-Iranian racism and right-wing garbage trying to say the Iranians are primitive and lower than Americans and Jews.

Upon further review...it has been decided that AP should be ignored for failure to debate intelligently. IDF has defeated AP in debate and is not charged with a timeout.

If your a leftist, you seem to have forgotten about the 'democratic centralist' principle.
Democratic Centralism sure as hell doesn't help you win an air war.

Your blatant pro-American/Israeliism and warmongering is disgusting.

Also I am still waiting for your evidence thanks, all I have seen thus far is pro-US/Israel far-right-wing propaganda sites.

He gave you your evidence. It was you that choose to ignore it because it disagrees with your ideology. Yep. You are definitely the court jester.

He gave you your evidence. It was you that choose to ignore it because it disagrees with your ideology. Yep. You are definitely the court jester.
No real point insulting him any more, he's been hit with the Banzerfaust. Let the topic die.

I see no evidence, I see more propaganda.

Its only propaganda to you because it shows that Iran's Air Force is a piece of crap. Something I pointed out to you. The only one dipping into propaganda is you AP.

Terrorists will bomb one of American cities with a nuke from North-Korea, Iran or other nation that hates USA and can develope nukes. Then USA will nuke the shit out of Korea, Iran, Myanmar and about every "rogue" state. That is what WW3 would be like. If another strong nuclear power like Russia or China gets involved, that would probably lead to total nuclear annihilation. But I don´t believe that any of those "rogue" states would attack directly. They would use terrorists.

But remembering MAD, I don´t believe WW3 will ever happen.

It sounds like they're RP'ers on Nationstates, attempting to slip a GodMod under the radar...

LMAO!!!

No, your points are totally subjective, you haven't sourced a single claim you have made with unbiased evidence, you could have fabricated them all up for all we know. Sorry but I know your right-wing and partisan, and it's in your interest to look on things from a pro-US/Israel slant, I actually believe you made this all up or at least got it from a biased source. You have proven nothing except your right-wing bias.

The evidence is all there AP. It has been linked to by IDF. Your failure to view it is not anyone's fault but your own. You are made of fail.

The evidence is all there AP. It has been linked to by IDF. Your failure to view it is not anyone's fault but your own. You are made of fail.
Give it a break, squire, he's been banned, so he can't read this.

Its to bad that we all can't just play nice and stop all this killing

Give it a break, squire, he's been banned, so he can't read this.

He's been banned? May I see it?

He's been banned? May I see it?

Here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541377)

Not long but the question is...how are their launch systems arranged? I mean. If the US and Allies launch an attack, don't you think Command and Control systems are going to be the first to go? Not to mention any known missile sites. So yea... Well according to Iran many of their Command and control stations are mobile.


Even the so-called minutemen missiles take longer than a minute to fire. Well, you could fire it under a minute, but that would mean smacking it into the silo doors. Like on the RA2 intro!

There is also the fact these F-14s can't carry the AIM-54. The F-14 was designed around that single missile and Grumman technicians sabotaged the systems so their RADAR systems weren't compatible with the missiles. As a result, the F-14s are carrying missiles which don't work well with their systems.
Then explain how the took down a bunch of Iraqi Aircraft with them?

Oh and Iran has basicly been building their own F-14 parts. of course they can make them ALL which is why the US was so quick to destroy all of the old F-14s.
(Though personally I think they did it so the Navy couldn't change their mind, Got to help those poor poor defense industries!)

-----
PS: If you spam enough missiles they will get through. One thing that is alike in the real world and NS.

-----
Still Iran couldn't hold off against a sustained assault, that's quite obivious.

Here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541377)

WOW!! Now he can not get on me for being deated as he has done in the past. Hopefully he learned his lesson.

Your media is just trying to fear you, just like they did with Iraq.

And it really works, lots of Americans think that Iran would nuke USA…

I'm wondering why Iran would nuke USA or iSSrael...

...as an answer they would be nuked as well. Now that's a good reason to not start nuking...

...as an answer they would be nuked as well. Now that's a good reason to not start nuking...

Only to a rational mind it is an answer. To someone who does not care...

Only to a rational mind it is an answer. To someone who does not care...
The Iranian leadership, whilst being kooky, is not insane. They have a plan to keep in power and developing a nuclear weapon then using it on another country would definately not keep them in power.

Testing a nuclear weapon then threatening to use it if Iran is attacked would prevent a military invasion though.

Only to a rational mind it is an answer. To someone who does not care...

Puh-lease. Show me an established national power broker who's willing to kill himself to fight his enemy.

And no. Osama Bin Laden doesn't count. He's a figurehead. He's not ruling a country.

Your media is just trying to fear you, just like they did with Iraq.

And it really works, lots of Americans think that Iran would nuke USA…

I'm wondering why Iran would nuke USA or iSSrael...

...as an answer they would be nuked as well. Now that's a good reason to not start nuking...

"Lots of Americans" are also unable to locate Iran on a map. "Lots" of any nation are simple, ignorant and easy to sway but the vast majority that are intellectually capable, I would say, don't actually believe Iran would outright nuke the US.

Puh-lease. Show me an established national power broker who's willing to kill himself to fight his enemy.

And no. Osama Bin Laden doesn't count. He's a figurehead. He's not ruling a country.

Yea, this ridiculous notion of an insane and suicidal national leader drives me nuts. It is so unimaginably unlikely that a person too demented to think rationally would be able to navigate through the labyrinthine power struggle of attaining a position of leadership on a national scale. I honestly can't think of any example. I can think of bad guys, yes, but not anyone I would call irrational.

Let's see now, the last time that the Busheviks "Misunderestimated" the enemy, it led to an invasion that has lasted 4 and 1/2 years so far and cost approximately $500 Billion. Why are you warhawks/chickenhawks so eager to back a potentially even greater "misunderestimation" regarding Iran?

Heck....Afghanistan is STILL a hell hole after almost 6 years of occupation.

The mind boggles!!!

Let's see now, the last time that the Busheviks "Misunderestimated" the enemy, it led to an invasion that has lasted 4 and 1/2 years so far and cost approximately $500 Billion. Why are you warhawks/chickenhawks so eager to back a potentially even greater "misunderestimation" regarding Iran?

Heck....Afghanistan is STILL a hell hole after almost 6 years of occupation.

The mind boggles!!!

I don't think many, if anyone, in this thread is backing a US attack on Iran. Seems to me that the consensus is just that, regardless of being a good or bad decision, it is still technically feasible without starting WW3 or the US being nuked in retaliation.

Let's see now, the last time that the Busheviks "Misunderestimated" the enemy, it led to an invasion that has lasted 4 and 1/2 years so far and cost approximately $500 Billion. Why are you warhawks/chickenhawks so eager to back a potentially even greater "misunderestimation" regarding Iran?

Heck....Afghanistan is STILL a hell hole after almost 6 years of occupation.

The mind boggles!!!


Some US companies are making profit, isn't?

Let's see now, the last time that the Busheviks "Misunderestimated" the enemy, it led to an invasion that has lasted 4 and 1/2 years so far and cost approximately $500 Billion. Why are you warhawks/chickenhawks so eager to back a potentially even greater "misunderestimation" regarding Iran?

Heck....Afghanistan is STILL a hell hole after almost 6 years of occupation.

The mind boggles!!!

But no one's even thinking about going into Iran...fear of such an action is entirely irrational.

But no one's even thinking about going into Iran...fear of such an action is entirely irrational.

agreed.

Banzerfaust.

Wow. I lolled hard. Have a cookie, you've earned it.

I don't think many, if anyone, in this thread is backing a US attack on Iran. Seems to me that the consensus is just that, regardless of being a good or bad decision, it is still technically feasible without starting WW3 or the US being nuked in retaliation.
Well, I believe that the "misunderestimaters" should put their "technically feasible" slide rules back in the box.

These same idiots thought that Iraq would be well under control within 6 months. They kinda miscalculated?

Now, the other problem that the US and Israel face is the Russian declaration of support for Iran.

Nuke programme: Russia supports Iran (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070029538)

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday said his country will continue to cooperate with Iran in its nuclear programme, as the two countries along with three other Caspian Sea states agreed not to let their territory be used to launch an attack on any of them.

''Iran and Russia are now cooperating on wide range of issues such as aviation industry and Russia is to continue its contribution to Iran's peaceful nuclear programme,'' Putin said after a day-long summit of Caspian Sea states in Tehran.
How long is China and Russia going to sit back and let the US/Israel have it their way in the Middle East? Time for a reality check?

Wow. Who would've thought my last post yesterday would start WWIII. Without even invading Iran.

To get back on this subject, despite Iran's obvious inability to match and/or defeat the US air force with their own planes, it's really not what I was trying to argue.

In asymetrical warfare, you don't try to match an air force with an air force of yours. You buy lots of shoulder-held rocket weapons and SAM batteries, and shoot out enemy planes out of your sky. And that, Iran has in great quantities. They're equipped with Russian missiles and rockets, and those are of much greater quality than their warplanes are. I also recall reading about them having bought a couple of those so-called carrier-killer missiles the Russians have developed.

And with their military stretched thin as it is, losing their CAG in the Persian Gulf could be the last hit on the coffin's nails for the US mission in Iraq. Iranian rockets hitting US bases in Iraq and/or Afghanistan would mean a catastrophe of epic proportion as those regions descended into chaos, Talibans and Shi'ite radicals seizing the opportunity to ground long lost.

No, any military action would be pure suicide in the current Middle Eastern context. To argue that it would be reasonably feasible is to close your eyes on the possible repercussions. Even the "bomb the shit out of them by surprise and get out fast" is naively optimistic in its premise that no missile base or retaliation capacity of Iran would be left standing, which is just plain unrealistic.

Not to mention completely and utterly unwarranted, because, as I said earlier, Iran has done nothing illegal according to the nonproliferation treaty, and such a bombing campaign would be so illegal, immoral, and unwarranted that it's not even funny.

No, starting WWIII over fears that maybe the Iranians are thinking about eventually getting nukes? Not worth it.

Wow. Who would've thought my last post yesterday would start WWIII. Without even invading Iran.

To get back on this subject, despite Iran's obvious inability to match and/or defeat the US air force with their own planes, it's really not what I was trying to argue.

In asymetrical warfare, you don't try to match an air force with an air force of yours. You buy lots of shoulder-held rocket weapons and SAM batteries, and shoot out enemy planes out of your sky. And that, Iran has in great quantities. They're equipped with Russian missiles and rockets, and those are of much greater quality than their warplanes are. I also recall reading about them having bought a couple of those so-called carrier-killer missiles the Russians have developed.

And with their military stretched thin as it is, losing their CAG in the Persian Gulf could be the last hit on the coffin's nails for the US mission in Iraq. Iranian rockets hitting US bases in Iraq and/or Afghanistan would mean a catastrophe of epic proportion as those regions descended into chaos, Talibans and Shi'ite radicals seizing the opportunity to ground long lost.

No, any military action would be pure suicide in the current Middle Eastern context. To argue that it would be reasonably feasible is to close your eyes on the possible repercussions. Even the "bomb the shit out of them by surprise and get out fast" is naively optimistic in its premise that no missile base or retaliation capacity of Iran would be left standing, which is just plain unrealistic.

Not to mention completely and utterly unwarranted, because, as I said earlier, Iran has done nothing illegal according to the nonproliferation treaty, and such a bombing campaign would be so illegal, immoral, and unwarranted that it's not even funny.

No, starting WWIII over fears that maybe the Iranians are thinking about eventually getting nukes? Not worth it.
Well stated and I agree with you 1000%

Well, I believe that the "misunderestimaters" should put their "technically feasible" slide rules back in the box.


These same idiots thought that Iraq would be well under control within 6 months. They kinda miscalculated?

The problem is, back in 2003 we had the capabilities to strike Iraq, and occupy it for an extended period of time because we have secure supply lines into that country through our regional allies. Furthermore, we also had sufficient troops to carry out the strike and a short term occupation and withdrawl (three years feasibility on the long end) without major damage to the force. Unfortunately (and fortunately, too, I guess), not a single one of those things fits with Iran, which is why this comparison doesn't work.


Now, the other problem that the US and Israel face is the Russian declaration of support for Iran.

Nuke programme: Russia supports Iran (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070029538)

It's not just the US and Israel in this game, I might mention. The French, the UK and practically all of the Arabs are bothered by what Iran is doing. And, I might add, this involvement makes military intervention far less likely. If the US feels less like they're going it alone, they're more likely to play nice. See: North Korea and Five Party Talks.


How long is China and Russia going to sit back and let the US/Israel have it their way in the Middle East? Time for a reality check?

Short of the double edged blade of economic measures against the US, neither the RF or the PRC has the force projection capability to do jack-shit in the Middle East.

Wow. Who would've thought my last post yesterday would start WWIII. Without even invading Iran.

To get back on this subject, despite Iran's obvious inability to match and/or defeat the US air force with their own planes, it's really not what I was trying to argue.

In asymetrical warfare, you don't try to match an air force with an air force of yours. You buy lots of shoulder-held rocket weapons and SAM batteries, and shoot out enemy planes out of your sky. And that, Iran has in great quantities. They're equipped with Russian missiles and rockets, and those are of much greater quality than their warplanes are. I also recall reading about them having bought a couple of those so-called carrier-killer missiles the Russians have developed.

And with their military stretched thin as it is, losing their CAG in the Persian Gulf could be the last hit on the coffin's nails for the US mission in Iraq. Iranian rockets hitting US bases in Iraq and/or Afghanistan would mean a catastrophe of epic proportion as those regions descended into chaos, Talibans and Shi'ite radicals seizing the opportunity to ground long lost.

No, any military action would be pure suicide in the current Middle Eastern context. To argue that it would be reasonably feasible is to close your eyes on the possible repercussions. Even the "bomb the shit out of them by surprise and get out fast" is naively optimistic in its premise that no missile base or retaliation capacity of Iran would be left standing, which is just plain unrealistic.

Not to mention completely and utterly unwarranted, because, as I said earlier, Iran has done nothing illegal according to the nonproliferation treaty, and such a bombing campaign would be so illegal, immoral, and unwarranted that it's not even funny.

No, starting WWIII over fears that maybe the Iranians are thinking about eventually getting nukes? Not worth it.

I believe that American pilots were shitting in their paints when they saw the Iraqi MiG-25...

I believe that American pilots were shitting in their paints when they saw the Iraqi MiG-25...

Oh I would love to see proof of that.

Short of the double edged blade of economic measures against the US, neither the RF or the PRC has the force projection capability to do jack-shit in the Middle East.
Actually, the most likely scenario is not direct involvement from Russia or China in Iran. It's either or both supplying weapons, ammo, and/or logistical/comm support.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia fought a proxy war near its border by simply arming a third party to the teeth so they could fight US forces. They did it all the time back in the cold war.

I believe that American pilots were shitting in their paints when they saw the Iraqi MiG-25...

Why would they be worried about that plane?

Oh I would love to see proof of that.

During the 1991 Gulf War, US military officials initially claimed that no American aircraft was lost in air-to-air combat during the war. However, later investigations indicated that a US Navy F/A-18 piloted by Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher was shot down by an air-to-air missile on the first night of the war.[4] The kill was reportedly made with a R-40DT missile fired from a MiG-25PDS flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th squadron of the IrAF.[5]

In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, after eluding eight USAF F-15s, fired three missiles at EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission.[6] This may have led to the later loss of an F-15 to surface-to-air missiles, due to the lack of electronic jamming.

In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, though none could reach them.[7]

According to the same sources, at least one F-111 was also forced to abort its mission by a MiG-25 on the first 24 hours of hostilities, during an air raid over Tikrit.[8]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

But go to any military website and show some respect for the old MiG-25. It was for a long time the best jet in the world and according some experts it still is.

Actually, the most likely scenario is not direct involvement from Russia or China in Iran. It's either or both supplying weapons, ammo, and/or logistical/comm support.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia fought a proxy war near its border by simply arming a third party to the teeth so they could fight US forces. They did it all the time back in the cold war.

Ah, I see. I figured that CH was referring to them starting to play a similar role in the Middle East to what the US does, with or without US action against Iran.

During the 1991 Gulf War, US military officials initially claimed that no American aircraft was lost in air-to-air combat during the war. However, later investigations indicated that a US Navy F/A-18 piloted by Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher was shot down by an air-to-air missile on the first night of the war.[4] The kill was reportedly made with a R-40DT missile fired from a MiG-25PDS flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th squadron of the IrAF.[5]

In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, after eluding eight USAF F-15s, fired three missiles at EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission.[6] This may have led to the later loss of an F-15 to surface-to-air missiles, due to the lack of electronic jamming.

In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, though none could reach them.[7]

According to the same sources, at least one F-111 was also forced to abort its mission by a MiG-25 on the first 24 hours of hostilities, during an air raid over Tikrit.[8]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

But go to any military website and show some respect for the old MiG-25. It was for a long time the best jet in the world and according some experts it still is.

At most that's four sorties interrupted by the MiG-25, this being in a war 16 years ago, where over 1000 sorties were flown a day for the duration of the war. That's less than 1% of 1% of the allied sorties flown. Hell, you ought to do better than that with pure luck.

*snip*

Show where the USAF was shitting their pants because of the MiG 25.

Why would they be worried about that plane?

Speed, high ceiling, the pilot could eat more G's as in any other Western jet.
Good radar, nice arms...

It was (and still is) an amazing toy.

Now, you can go to Russia and for $25,000 you'll have the ride of your life. You will fly near the border of space.

a war in Iran is not currently in the sights of any leading politician. republican or democrat. at least not at the current time with iran not making too much of a threat. now if iran was to attack us, or our close allies then i can see a war.

although with reports of iranian trained/supplied millitants fighting in iraq, i think more should be done.

Speed, high ceiling, the pilot could eat more G's as in any other Western jet.
Good radar, nice arms...

It was (and still is) an amazing toy.

Now, you can go to Russia and for $25,000 you'll have the ride of your life. You will fly near the border of space.

Yeah, but it's decades old, easily surpassed by the F-15 and F-16, and blown away by the F-22 or F-35. I guess, an unarmed RF-111C might be vulnerable, but all they'd have to do is tuck their wings and run.

At most that's four sorties interrupted by the MiG-25, this being in a war 16 years ago, where over 1000 sorties were flown a day for the duration of the war. That's less than 1% of 1% of the allied sorties flown. Hell, you ought to do better than that with pure luck.

Sure. They were outnumbered.

But 4 Mig25 would eat 6 F15's for breakfast, like it is nothing. :)

Sure. They were outnumbered.

But 4 Mig25 would eat 6 F15's for breakfast, like it is nothing. :)

And what leads you to this conclusion?

a war in Iran is not currently in the sights of any leading politician. republican or democrat. at least not at the current time with iran not making too much of a threat. now if iran was to attack us, or our close allies then i can see a war.

although with reports of iranian trained/supplied millitants fighting in iraq, i think more should be done.

What exactly can be done?

By most accounts, you shouldn't even be in Iraq to begin with. But except adding the Iranian Republican Guard units responsible for this on a list of terrorist organisations, there's not much that you can do about it. The Iranian government sure isn't going to stop this. And you can't make them stop, either, because it would spark off the worst military crisis since the cold war. Not to mention the US capital of sympathy in the rest of the western world has been stretched to its limits by Bush's warmongering; picking fights with yet another country would leave the US pretty much alone to fend off for itself.

Yeah, but it's decades old, easily surpassed by the F-15 and F-16, and blown away by the F-22 or F-35. I guess, an unarmed RF-111C might be vulnerable, but all they'd have to do is tuck their wings and run.

The F15 is about the same age... (a little younger), even the F16 is just a little more younger.

No, all those planes would have problems with a Mig25's.

The Mig25 has it *all*, while the planes you called are good in one skill (speed, acceleration, ceiling, etc...)

I was in the airforce in 1988.

The F15 is about the same age... (a little younger), even the F16 is just a little more younger.

No, all those planes would have problems with a Mig25's.

The Mig25 has it *all*, while the planes you called are good in one skill (speed, acceleration, ceiling, etc...)

I was in the airforce in 1988.

Which Air Force? The Belgian AF? My father was in the USAF. Now prove that the MiG 25 can defeat the F-14, F-15, or even the F-16?

What exactly can be done?

By most accounts, you shouldn't even be in Iraq to begin with. But except adding the Iranian Republican Guard units responsible for this on a list of terrorist organisations, there's not much that you can do about it. The Iranian government sure isn't going to stop this. And you can't make them stop, either, because it would spark off the worst military crisis since the cold war. Not to mention the US capital of sympathy in the rest of the western world has been stretched to its limits by Bush's warmongering; picking fights with yet another country would leave the US pretty much alone to fend off for itself.
More pearls of wisdom!! :)

And what leads you to this conclusion?

Look at the characteristics and read some actual war stories...

I've some stories about the MiG25, I'll search for it tomorrow.

It's still in service in Russia and a few other countries.

Look at the characteristics and read some actual war stories...

I've some stories about the MiG25, I'll search for it tomorrow.

It's still in service in Russia and a few other countries.

According to Wikipedia, the MiG-25 is only flown in 4 national Air Forces. Armenia, Syria, Algeria, and Russia. Also, they are limited in number as well.

The F15 is about the same age... (a little younger), even the F16 is just a little more younger.

No, all those planes would have problems with a Mig25's.

The Mig25 has it *all*, while the planes you called are good in one skill (speed, acceleration, ceiling, etc...)

I was in the airforce in 1988.

Are you kidding? The MiG-25 has jack in comparison to the sixth generation planes I listed: They beat it in radar profile, radar capabilities, sustained speed capabilities, armament and range, and while it was competitive to the fifth generation planes I listed in 1988, it hasn't been since the mid-nineties thanks to the superb upgrade packages that have been universally installed on them by the US.

Which Air Force? The Belgian AF? My father was in the USAF. Now prove that the MiG 25 can defeat the F-14, F-15, or even the F-16?

Belgian AF.

Man o man, I have to recall from my head...

I believe the rader is 500 kilowatts. This is wow. Odds are high that it would fry a rabbit when it was used on the ground. :)

For the electronics, it was using vacuum tubes (including the radar!). At first glance, very old, but they suffer less from electromagnetic pulse as our modern electronics do, and it is having other advantages as well.

I've some data in my books. I'll retrieve it for you.

Belgian AF.

Man o man, I have to recall from my head...

I believe the rader is 500 kilowatts. This is wow. Odds are high that it would fry a rabbit when it was used on the ground. :)

For the electronics, it was using vacuum tubes (including the radar!). At first glance, very old, but they suffer less from electromagnetic pulse as our modern electronics do, and it is having other advantages as well.

I've some data in my books. I'll retrieve it for you.

No need. i have the specs infront of me thanks to wiki. Oh and it looks like you misquoted wiki as well. Alwell.

According to Wikipedia, the MiG-25 is only flown in 4 national Air Forces. Armenia, Syria, Algeria, and Russia. Also, they are limited in number as well.

No, not true. That are current users.

No, not true. That are current users.

[edit] Current Operators
Algeria: 11 remain operational with the Algerian Air Force, including 5 MiG-25A, 3 MiG-25PD, and 3 MiG-25R models.
Armenia: 1 is maintained operational.
Russia: 25 remain in service with the Russian Air Force.
Syria: 11 remain in service, including 2 MiG-25R and a MiG-25U with the Syrian Air Force.

[edit] Former Operators
Egypt:4 MiG-25R prototypes from the USSR were temporarily inducted into service with the Egyptian Air Force in 1972 and then returned on 1974 to Soviet Union.
Bulgaria: Three MiG-25RBT (#731, #736 and #754) and one MiG-25RU (#51) were delivered in 1982. On April 12 1984 #736 crashed near Balchik. The pilot ejected successfully. They were operated by 26th RAB at Dobrich until their withdrawal. In May 1991, the surviving MiG-25s were returned to the USSR in exchange for five MiG-23MLD.
Azerbaijan: As many as 20 operated in the past, recently retired from service.
India: Retired from service in July 2006.
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Libya
Soviet Union: The largest operator historically, Soviet aircraft were passed on to its successor states in 1991.
Turkmenistan

Outside of those four nations I named, what other nations fly them?

Are you kidding? The MiG-25 has jack in comparison to the sixth generation planes I listed: They beat it in radar profile, radar capabilities, sustained speed capabilities, armament and range, and while it was competitive to the fifth generation planes I listed in 1988, it hasn't been since the mid-nineties thanks to the superb upgrade packages that have been universally installed on them by the US.

The Mig25 has it *all*, the other planes are specialized in a few things. That's making it, even today, a nasty opponent.

Sure, it's getting more and more outdated, which is not that weird for a plane that is born in the 60ties. Hello, we are 2007 now!

Outside of those four nations I named, what other nations fly them?

Doh? Look at list you provided by your self...

Belgian AF.

Man o man, I have to recall from my head...

I believe the rader is 500 kilowatts. This is wow. Odds are high that it would fry a rabbit when it was used on the ground. :)

For the electronics, it was using vacuum tubes (including the radar!). At first glance, very old, but they suffer less from electromagnetic pulse as our modern electronics do, and it is having other advantages as well.

I've some data in my books. I'll retrieve it for you.

But that's just active radar. Turning that on is like turning on a gigantic neon sign saying "look at me! I'm here! Shoot your Sparrows and AMRAAMs at me! Ooooh! Oooooh!" The trick is passive radar, such as what is deployed on the F-22. It's stealthy, and allows you to be able to see a joker running a 500 KiloWatt set from miles away, without him being able to see you.

Doh? Look at list you provided by your self...

I did. Four nations are currently operating them. You told me I was wrong so tell me who else if flying them!

But that's just active radar. Turning that on is like turning on a gigantic neon sign saying "look at me! I'm here! Shoot your Sparrows and AMRAAMs at me! Ooooh! Oooooh!" The trick is passive radar, such as what is deployed on the F-22. It's stealthy, and allows you to be able to see a joker running a 500 KiloWatt set from miles away, without him being able to see you.


Hehe, it didn't fly with the radar on all the time.

'Cause its speed and other capabilities, their technique was more or less like this:

* Radar Off
* Fly to Target
* Reach Target
* Radar On
* Lock Target
* Kill Target
* Radar off
* Escape.

Hehe, it didn't fly with the radar on all the time.

'Cause its speed and other capabilities, their technique was more or less like this:

* Radar Off
* Fly to Target
* Reach Target
* Radar On
* Lock Target
* Kill Target
* Radar off
* Escape.

And while in the process, they can still be tracked. They are not exactly a stealthy aircraft.

I did. Four nations are currently operating them. You told me I was wrong so tell me who else if flying them!

No, I didn't. You can't read, I guess:

No, not true. That are current users.

The Mig25 has it *all*, the other planes are specialized in a few things. That's making it, even today, a nasty opponent.
I don't see where the F-22 and F-35 don't have it all. They very nicely balanced planes.


Sure, it's getting more and more outdated, which is not that weird for a plane that is born in the 60ties. Hello, we are 2007 now!

Was it a good plane back in it's day? Yeah, it was. It flew circles around the Israeli's until we sold them the F-15. But when they did get the F-15, the Israelis manhandled the Egyptian and Syrian MiG-25's fairly brutally, way back when.

No, I didn't. You can't read, I guess:

As long as you agree that there are only 4 nations flying them with a total of 48 planes, I do not care.

And while in the process, they can still be tracked. They are not exactly a stealthy aircraft.

They are stealhy as a Lada :)

But enormous fast. The Israeli hated the MiG25. I believe they flew above Israel more than a dozen times (with Russian pilots btw).

It took a while before the Israeli found a solution. It was not like described in wiki that they have to wait for their own F15's. It had more to do with strategy.

As long as you agree that there are only 4 nations flying them with a total of 48 planes, I do not care.

4? That's possible yes.

They are stealhy as a Lada :)

But enormous fast. The Israeli hated the MiG25. I believe they flew above Israel more than a dozen times (with Russian pilots btw).

It took a while before the Israeli found a solution. It was not like described in wiki that they have to wait for their own F15's. It had more to do with strategy.

Much like how the Allies dealt with the German jet fighters. Props shot the deutsch jets from the sky.

MiG-25s are a good fighter. I have not denied that but when it came up against their American counterparts, it did not fair so well.

Hehe, it didn't fly with the radar on all the time.

'Cause its speed and other capabilities, their technique was more or less like this:

*Detected by passive radar, "target" achieves lock
* Radar Off
* Fly to Target
*"Target" fires multiple Air-to-Air missiles
*Thanks to fire and forget technology, "Target" turns away, hits supercruise.
*Detects missile, engages in evasive action
*Missiles close and destroy MiG-25

The rest is just superfluous, because the the MiG-25 is dead.
* Reach Target
* Radar On
* Lock Target
* Kill Target
* Radar off
* Escape.

I made some corrections.

I don't see where the F-22 and F-35 don't have it all. They very nicely balanced planes.

Sure they are, no doubt.

Mig25
Speed: Mach 3
Ceiling: 24.000 m

F22
Speed: Mach 2
Ceiling: 18.000 m

F35
Speed: Mach 1.6
Ceiling: 15.000 m

Maybe you understand now, why it is an amazing plane...

Was it a good plane back in it's day? Yeah, it was. It flew circles around the Israeli's until we sold them the F-15. But when they did get the F-15, the Israelis manhandled the Egyptian and Syrian MiG-25's fairly brutally, way back when.

No, it has nothing to do with the F15, but by strategy. I'll search it out how they could stop the Mig25.

It still is a very good plane...

Much like how the Allies dealt with the German jet fighters. Props shot the deutsch jets from the sky.

MiG-25s are a good fighter. I have not denied that but when it came up against their American counterparts, it did not fair so well.

Not in dogfights. Partly the American technique is outnumbering the enemy (which is a good one, don't get me wrong).

Much like how the Allies dealt with the German jet fighters. Props shot the deutsch jets from the sky.

MiG-25s are a good fighter. I have not denied that but when it came up against their American counterparts, it did not fair so well.

That and Hitler thought it would be a great idea to task the Me 262 as a ground attack plane, rather than an actual air-to-air fighter. What a bizarre decision.

I made some corrections.

No, it's not dead. Even the Russians are still using it.

That and Hitler thought it would be a great idea to task the Me 262 as a ground attack plane, rather than an actual air-to-air fighter. What a bizarre decision.

Indeed. Much like his decision to let up on the RAF when they were on the ropes. Alwell. We all know that Hitler was no military leader anyway. :D

No, it's not dead. Even the Russians are still using it.

He was talking about the plane being destroyed Edwinasia :headbang:

He was talking about the plane being destroyed Edwinasia :headbang:

Wishfull thinking from his side. Believe me. :)

I have those war stories somewhere. I'll provide them tomorrow.

Maybe a nice idea for a new thread. This one, isn't about MiG25 :)

Sure they are, no doubt.

Mig25
Speed: Mach 3
Ceiling: 24.000 m

F22
Speed: Mach 2
Ceiling: 18.000 m

F35
Speed: Mach 1.6
Ceiling: 15.000 m

Maybe you understand now, why it is an amazing plane...

The MiG-25 proved, once and for all, that speed is overrated, unless you're targeting inbound strategic bombers. You've got to use the afterburner, which is going to devour your fuel capacity and your range. Which is precisely why later Russian models opted out of such high speeds, in favor of other characteristics. The MiG-29 and Su-35, both Russian designs, have substantially slower top speeds than the MiG-25.

Except, for the MiG-25, that's on fuel-wasting afterburner. It'll guzzle that gas down at unbelievable rates when hitting Mach 3. The F-22, on the other hand, has the ability to supercruise at extremely high speeds without throwing in the afterburner.



No, it has nothing to do with the F15, but by strategy. I'll search it out how they could stop the Mig25.

It still is a very good plane...

Of course it's a good plane. It beats the hell out of everything up to the F-15, and even then gives older F-15 variants a run for their money. But it's just not what's needed in anyone's air force: That's why the only people who fly it are those who have nothing else.

Not in dogfights. Partly the American technique is outnumbering the enemy (which is a good one, don't get me wrong).

And blasting the enemy before they can even get off the ground. Stealth technology for the win!

Maybe a nice idea for a new thread. This one, isn't about MiG25 :)

Now it is :D

[Threadjack=Corny, Edwin and Andy][Threadjack=Iranian Missiles->MiG-25]

Wishfull thinking from his side. Believe me. :)

Actually...what And. said is true.

I have those war stories somewhere. I'll provide them tomorrow.

Why not today? It is what? 1822 over in Antwerp?

Maybe a nice idea for a new thread. This one, isn't about MiG25 :)

True but the thread has been debunked so why not!

And blasting the enemy before they can even get off the ground. Stealth technology for the win!


No, you have it all partly wrong.

Its speeds and high ceiling is giving him a clear advantage.

Even against Stealth-passive radar opponents.

There are no other jets (or at least, not many) that can reach that ceiling. Even many missiles will have problems at that height...

And for a plane, that robust, it's still very manoeuvrable. The F15 is 'riding' like a truck, the MiG25 is like an Italian sportscar. :)

No, you have it all partly wrong.

Its speeds and high ceiling is giving him a clear advantage.

Ok?

Even against Stealth-passive radar opponents.

Do you know anything about Stealth Technology? A MiG-25 cannot hit what it cannot see.

There are no other jets (or at least, not many) that can reach that ceiling. Even many missiles will have problems at that height...

What is your point?

And for a plane, that robust, it's still very manoeuvrable. The F15 is 'riding' like a truck, the MiG25 is like an Italian sportscar. :)

And yet a MiG25 has a hard time with the F-15s. Why is that?

Now it is :D

[Threadjack=Corny, Edwin and Andy][Threadjack=Iranian Missiles->MiG-25]
Let me know when the pissing match is over please. :D

Let me know when the pissing match is over please. :D

First off, it's never going to be over. :p

And, secondly, why? So you can keep fear-mongering about the US and its plans in the Middle East and Venezuela? :D

The battle between the Foxbat vs an American fighter goes to the Americans.

Before we go into the technical aspects of the aircraft, lets look at some other reasons.

1. Training: The training of flight crews in Western countries is far superior to that of the current Foxbat operators. Our pilots have gone through programs like Red Flag and Naval Fighter Weapons School. On top of that, many of our pilots have combat experience and have flown several mock air battles in blue on blue exercises.

2. AWACS: While the Russians developed the Mainstay, it is still behind our Sentry. Our pilots have been practicing with a doctrine that relies heavily on AWACS support. They can keep their RADARs on standby and engage enemies without even illuminating their own RADAR. With missiles like the AMRAAM and the Sidewinder, the plane's RADAR isn't needed to acquire a target. (Which is a huge advantage over older missiles like the Sparrow and Phoenix.) When using stealth aircraft, RADAR emissions are something you don't want to emit. With an E-3 providing a good picture of the airspace, you don't need to use your RADAR and can be vectored in on a target by the airborne controllers.

Now as we get into the technical aspects we will see the Western aircraft still have an advantage.

Stealth is something the F-35 and F-22 have. The MiG-25 has a fairly large RADAR signature. The Foxbat would be blown out of the sky before he knew there was another plane in the airspace.

The MiG-25 is faster and can fly higher than the US planes, but it can't sustain the speed and altitude for long. On afterburner, a plane will burn its entire fuel supply in less than 20 minutes. The Foxbat can't continue to run on AB for long. The F-22 may take a while to catch up with the MiG following the burst, but the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.5 and burn far less fuel than the MiG. The F-22 would catch up to the MiG and fire on him. Of course, I can't see why the MiG would run in the first place. His first warning of an enemy plane being in the vicinity would be the sight of the missile's smoke trail. By that time, it would be too late.

Another fact about the MiG-25 is that it is not even meant to be an air superiority fighter. It has shit maneuverability. It was built for the sole purpose of intercepting NATO bombers before they could get over the Soviet coast.

In the battle of MiG-25s vs. F-15s, all I have to do is point to their service in the Syrian Air Force. Israeli F-15s raped the Syrian MiG-25s in 1982.

Sure they are, no doubt.
Mig25
Speed: Mach 3

Isn't that after using an afterburner?

And blasting the enemy before they can even get off the ground. Stealth technology for the win!

It hardly relies on being stealthy if you have no fuel at the time :p.

Do you know anything about Stealth Technology? A MiG-25 cannot hit what it cannot see.

To be fair... If you can present a difficult target to destroy yet still cannot destroy the fighter planes you (hopefully) could switch to start attacking strategic resources.

The battle between the Foxbat vs an American fighter goes to the Americans.

Before we go into the technical aspects of the aircraft, lets look at some other reasons.

1. Training: The training of flight crews in Western countries is far superior to that of the current Foxbat operators. Our pilots have gone through programs like Red Flag and Naval Fighter Weapons School. On top of that, many of our pilots have combat experience and have flown several mock air battles in blue on blue exercises.

Training is indeed the key. Heck, my dad did red flag and he defeated fighters before. In a flying boxcar no less :D

I wouldn't put money on that. Human wave tactics don't work well against machine gun positions because let's face it, humans are slow and fragile.

Missile wave tactics on the other hand, are a different story. Even if they're cheap knockoffs. We're talking missiles with on average +600kp/h cruise speeds and warhead sizes ranging from 200-500kg and greater. From maximum intercept range to impact, we're looking at what, 30 seconds or less?

I don't know how many missiles Iran has, or how many launchers other than a whole lot of them. But I do know that while the fleets are sitting in the gulf, they're in range of almost all of them.

I'll admit a first strike by the US with the advantage of surprise ala Pearl Harbor could conceivably knock out much of Iran's ability to strike back, but you'd better get used to not getting any oil out of the Middle East by ship.

If it's a first strike by Iran, or if the US doesn't take out their coastal defense ability, expect a heavy surprise attack using whatever tricks they can think of. Disguised attack boats as pleasure craft. Prop planes loaded with explosives flying under false IFFs transponders. The works.

It won't be crippling losses, but it will be heavy.

Also, Iran has been buying new generation Russian anti-shipping missiles of late.
NAS, I'm going to assume you aren't too familiar with how current US Navy defense systems work. I'm sure a lot of posters here don't know about them either. If you wish, I'll give you a brief little rundown here. This is both for your benefit and for the benefit of those who are lurking in this thread and want to read a geeky post.

In the late 60s/early 70s, the US saw an increasing threat of missile attacks on the Navy. If the Cold War were to have resulted, the plan called for the US to escort supply convoys across the Atlantic. This was much like WWII. The problem was that submarine torpedoes weren't the only problem. The US had SOSUS and could deal with subs thanks to our own subs, P-3s, and DEs (which were redesignated as FFs in 1975).

The Soviets built the Tu-22M Backfire to carry high speed ASMs to kill our CVs. They also built cruise missile attacks so they could hit convoys and CVs from long range without feeling the wrath of our escort ships. The US built the F-14 to deal with this threat, but realized these long range missiles would be fired before the intercepts could be made. As a result, the US developed the Aegis system.

It was tested in 1975 and first implemented on the Ticonderoga class CGs. The system was built around the SPY-1 RADAR. It is the most powerful RADAR on surface ships (it might have been surpassed by the British variant on the Type 45 last year but either way for 30+ years it was the most powerful RADAR afloat). The ships mounting the Aegis system (Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class) each carry 122 and 90 missiles respectively in VLS tubes. Each carrier has several DDGs and CGs escorting her.

The Aegis system combined with the VLS (the 5 rail launcher Ticos were decommissioned a few years back so all are VLS now) allows the US ships to spam hundreds of missiles in the air in minutes. This means a single US CVBG can survive a swarm of 100+ incoming "vampires."

Your post seemed to be talking more about the capabilities of the point defense systems like the CIWS. The CIWS is a last resort and hopefully would not have to be used in an attack. The CIWS is being phased out though. US ships are now carrying ESSMs for when missiles get to closer ranges. They are also replacing the CIWS with the RAM launchers. They are more likely to score a hit from a longer distance. If a US ship had to engage a missile with CIWS, fragments of the missile would likely rip through the ship and cause fires and casualties.

So basically, the US Navy is prepared to deal with missile swarms of much faster and deadlier Soviet missiles. The C-802 would be cake for Aegis.

It hardly relies on being stealthy if you have no fuel at the time :p.



Hehe, I'm thinking more along the lines of using one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit) to drop some of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDAM) when the MiGs are kinda hangin' out like this. (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/Aeroindia/MiG-29.jpg)

I wouldn't put money on that. Human wave tactics don't work well against machine gun positions because let's face it, humans are slow and fragile.

Missile wave tactics on the other hand, are a different story. Even if they're cheap knockoffs. We're talking missiles with on average +600kp/h cruise speeds and warhead sizes ranging from 200-500kg and greater. From maximum intercept range to impact, we're looking at what, 30 seconds or less?

I don't know how many missiles Iran has, or how many launchers other than a whole lot of them. But I do know that while the fleets are sitting in the gulf, they're in range of almost all of them.

I'll admit a first strike by the US with the advantage of surprise ala Pearl Harbor could conceivably knock out much of Iran's ability to strike back, but you'd better get used to not getting any oil out of the Middle East by ship.

If it's a first strike by Iran, or if the US doesn't take out their coastal defense ability, expect a heavy surprise attack using whatever tricks they can think of. Disguised attack boats as pleasure craft. Prop planes loaded with explosives flying under false IFFs transponders. The works.

It won't be crippling losses, but it will be heavy.

Also, Iran has been buying new generation Russian anti-shipping missiles of late.

Someone should TG Lunatic Goofballs: he used to be in the Navy in an anti-missile role IIRC.

Someone should TG Lunatic Goofballs: he used to be in the Navy in an anti-missile role IIRC.did he use pies? :D

The battle between the Foxbat vs an American fighter goes to the Americans.

Before we go into the technical aspects of the aircraft, lets look at some other reasons.

1. Training: The training of flight crews in Western countries is far superior to that of the current Foxbat operators. Our pilots have gone through programs like Red Flag and Naval Fighter Weapons School. On top of that, many of our pilots have combat experience and have flown several mock air battles in blue on blue exercises.

2. AWACS: While the Russians developed the Mainstay, it is still behind our Sentry. Our pilots have been practicing with a doctrine that relies heavily on AWACS support. They can keep their RADARs on standby and engage enemies without even illuminating their own RADAR. With missiles like the AMRAAM and the Sidewinder, the plane's RADAR isn't needed to acquire a target. (Which is a huge advantage over older missiles like the Sparrow and Phoenix.) When using stealth aircraft, RADAR emissions are something you don't want to emit. With an E-3 providing a good picture of the airspace, you don't need to use your RADAR and can be vectored in on a target by the airborne controllers.

Now as we get into the technical aspects we will see the Western aircraft still have an advantage.

Stealth is something the F-35 and F-22 have. The MiG-25 has a fairly large RADAR signature. The Foxbat would be blown out of the sky before he knew there was another plane in the airspace.

The MiG-25 is faster and can fly higher than the US planes, but it can't sustain the speed and altitude for long. On afterburner, a plane will burn its entire fuel supply in less than 20 minutes. The Foxbat can't continue to run on AB for long. The F-22 may take a while to catch up with the MiG following the burst, but the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.5 and burn far less fuel than the MiG. The F-22 would catch up to the MiG and fire on him. Of course, I can't see why the MiG would run in the first place. His first warning of an enemy plane being in the vicinity would be the sight of the missile's smoke trail. By that time, it would be too late.

Another fact about the MiG-25 is that it is not even meant to be an air superiority fighter. It has shit maneuverability. It was built for the sole purpose of intercepting NATO bombers before they could get over the Soviet coast.

In the battle of MiG-25s vs. F-15s, all I have to do is point to their service in the Syrian Air Force. Israeli F-15s raped the Syrian MiG-25s in 1982.

It had nothing to do with the capacities of the F15's, but about tactics...

The F15 were delivered to Israel in 1976 and it took them 5 year to hunt down, one lousy single Foxbat (the only one). :)

And it was not in 1982, but 1981. For ten years the Foxbats were flying above Israel... :)

The training of the Russian pilots is pretty awesome, as the Israeli remarked. :) Russian pilots were waving from their Foxbats above Israel in those times. :)

Btw, there is no thing as 'bad jet fighters'. They are all pretty well trained. Such planes are too expensive to hand it over to the loser around the corner. Sure, some have more training time. But don’t underestimate the pilots in the Middle-East, many of them have actual war experience…

Foxbats have beaten often F15's.

Sure it's not stealth, but there's no need for: it is having speed, ceiling.

Please let us talk, about this beauty in:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541458

NAS, I'm going to assume you aren't too familiar with how current US Navy defense systems work.

Some familiarity. Certainly nowhere as intimate as any current missile defense techs, but enough to know the current trend of switching to missiles for AMS. And yeah, I know of the development history. They all depended one thing though. Detecting the inbound missiles at long range.

You see, you've forgotten one important aspect of my post. The element of surprise. I mentioned disguised vessels launching surprise attacks there, and up close as well as suicide "neutral" craft. Very little warning, and possibly hundreds of missiles with very little time to react. It's been done before in simulations and the bigwigs were so red faced about it, they pretended it never happened.

I'm putting a lot of money on them never learning that lesson until they lose those fleets for real.