How good is Iran's Air Force?

[Dems2002]

I have a question that I do not know the answer to, but I think it may be important in the months to come. Just how good is Iran's Air Force?

Should we decide to conduct bombing raids on Iran, might it be able to retaliate?

Could War suddenly be brought to our shores?

Dems

[Monkeyman]

1. They may be good but the planes they fly are not

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Iran would be able to retaliate...

by sinking US war ships, striking key facilities in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

More due to missles than planes.

Including chemical weapons. If Iran strikes Tel Aviv with chemical weapons, I'd suspect Israel would respond with nukes. Then it'd be WWIII, and yes, war would be brought to our shores.

[PLF]

3. "our shores" no way, at least not by an Iranian fighter jet.

[SteppingRazor]

4. No, our shores would be fine.

It's not a matter of how good the Air Force is — and the Iranian air force is, in fact, substandard compared to the modern American military, consisting of outdated American and Russian planes such as the F-14.

The crux of the problem for Iran would be the lack of a staging area for American attacks. American missions into Iran could be staged from Iraq, Afghanistan, aircraft carriers in the Gulf, and numerous allied nations. Iran has none of these options.

[HereSince1628]

11. Dangersous assumption that. If my country's existance was threatened

I'd retaliate with every means I had. I have the sneaky feeling that Iran is not only supporting terror-related groups of "freedom fighters" that would act as surrogates, but Iran can also run black ops on its own.

We've already seen how the word terror devastates our way of life through destruction and usurption of constitutional governance and international human rights. A few bombed cities or landmarks and we'd kiss good-bye to even the concept of a republic.

[SteppingRazor]

13. I agree that an attack on Iran by the U.S. might result in terrorist attacks here, but...

that wasn't the question posed in the OP, which asked whether the Iranian air force would be capable of attacking us. And the answer to that question is, clearly, not a chance.

[LSK]

21. Hezbollah via Mexico

[JackRiddler]

83. Um... how numerous do you think these allies will be after the party starts?

And aren't they the target of the retaliation - US bases and warships in the area?

[underpants]

5. I hear they were better than the Iraqis

but that isn't saying much.

I think they are still flying some of the OLD planes that we sold them back in the Shah days but I am not sure about that.

[jpak]

6. Very few operational combat aircraft, < 300 total, most are obsolete

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

Not much of a threat to the Navy or Air Force...

None can reach the US...

[Caoimhe]

14. that was cool

we posted the same link ONE second apart :P

[Caoimhe]

7. A great website for this type of information

http://www.globalsecurity.org

I had to search around to find the stats on Iran, so I will save you the trouble:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/index.html

[sweetheart]

12. remember to add in this arsenal

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/missile.htm

Pushing world war 3 to a hot war will bring russian hardware in to iran in
massive quantities. A second nazi grab for the caspian basin will break on
russian blood once again.

[Caoimhe]

15. Very good point

I wonder how accurate the info on this site is?

[sweetheart]

27. Put yourself in their shoes

Your opposition is striking you from a set of safe airbases in surrounding nations. You launch a low-tech system
to eliminate all those air bases, poison gas would do it, but they could be repopulated, and surely it would
bring a nasty response. Surely there are prepared silos with missiles to take down diego garcia, and all
surrounding US bases that could be launched on a single command. When the US attacks its hail mary, sink
everything, destroy all air bases and demonstrate why persia is the oldest empire on earth.

(as well of course, a full strike on all oil terminals, refineries and ports in the gulf.) A srewd military
commander would be prepared to destroy these as colonial outposts of imperial corporate oil.

The best is a viscious 'strike the fist' technology that would shoot down the USA delivery platforms of the
cruise missile and F-16/22/18/15/14 weasel a10 awacs setup when they come near, but barring that, a deadly
strike on the nearby bases would make the war expensive in lives and costs, and the real issue given such
a position is to drain the resources of an empire until it bleeds for a political change.

The dollar could become anathema along with a petrowar economy sinking in the straights of hormuz, and
your job when fighting the USA is not to win, only to cause monetary pain, its the only thing capitalists
respect.

[jmowreader]

33. Poison gas isn't all that good of a weapon

If the wind shifts to blow the gas away from the target, it's eliminated.

If the sun is too hot and it evaporates the gas, it's eliminated.

There is one GOOD use, from a tactical point of view, for chemical weapons: area denial. Whatcha do is find a choice access route to wherever it is you want to keep the bad guys out of, soak 500 meters or so of that road in a persistent chemical agent, and plaster it with "contaminated area" signs. The enemy has to stop, button up into chemical warfare gear (which is very hot and very bulky, so you don't move well and your unit racks up heat injuries at a very rapid pace), cross the contaminated area then spend time decontaminating itself...or it can try to bypass the area. Naturally, you've contaminated enough of the area that there's only one good way around the contamination...naturally, not only is it NOT very good, but you've festooned it with claymores. (There's not really a good use for chemical agents, but unless you're Saddam or the Ayatollah, you're probably not going to try killing people by aerial spray because it takes too much agent to get your point across.)

Remember the little demonstration Colin Powell gave to the UN before we went to war in Iraq, where he held up this little vial half full of Karo syrup or something and told the world "this little vial can contain enough deadly nerve agent to kill three thousand people"? Well...let me tell you how to do it. Take your little vial of deadly nerve agent and round up three thousand people. Put them on their knees and instill one drop of deadly nerve agent into each of their eyes. This is not a feasible operation for reasons which should immediately be obvious.

[jpak]

18. The vast majority of Iranian SAM systems are obsolete too

Their only modern system is the point defense Tor M-1.

They have only 29 TM-1 firing units and little operational experience with them.

Virtually no threat to US aircraft...

[Dems2002]

38. Agreed

[hack89]

68. Why do you think this?

Russia has given no indications that it plans to do this. In any case, it would be meaningless - by the time the Iranians received the gear and actually learned how to use it the war would be over. It is not like going to Walmart and buying stuff off the shelf - it takes months if not years for militaries to integrate new equipment and become proficient in its use.

On edit: do you think Russia would intervene? No way - not against air and missile strikes against Iran. That would not pose a threat to their territory.

[Joe for Clark]

8. Not a threat - not to our guys.

They fly Soviet Migs - planes are ok, not up to ours, but it is mostly how good the pilot is at the end of the day.

You know how much you have to measure up to - to be an American fighter pilot??

Their air force would be dispatched in 48 hours.

Their missles might do better.

Joe

[zulchzulu]

9. Here's a couple assessments - check out Straits of Hormuz

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1996/6423641-6427508.htm



"While Iran's nuclear capability may be years away, its chemical
weapons program is already the largest in the Third World, Eisenstadt
said. "It can produce several hundred tons of chemical agent a year
and may have produced as much as 2,000 tons of agent to date."

"...deemed the bulk of Iran's conventional capability as
"relatively modest," the country's potential to strike at sensitive
targets in the Persian Gulf and even close the Straits of Hormuz
temporarily make the Iranian Navy a threat of some consequence to the
United States and its allies."

Videos:

http://www.defencetalk.com/military_videos/military_videos/iran_military_power_show_20060828.php

[sweetheart]

22. check out this picture from the straights of hormuz

They'll each require a separate bombstrike they're bunkered in.

[ddbaj]

10. No way a plane can reach the USA from Iran.

They'd need aircraft carriers or bases located closer to the USA.

[LaPera]

16. China & Russia's Air Force is more than capable, as is Pakistan's nuclear weapons and

along with Iran's weapons.... all will present many problems for any invaders of Iran...With Iran shutting down their oil to the US as well as Venezuela promise to do so if Iran is attacked...Iran is more than covered....

Only the oil companies can't wait and will make a killing gouging us even more at the pumps....Who's worried about Iran...then you are watching far too much CNN and MSNBC!

[Selatius]

54. China and Russia's air force won't get involved. Besides, China couldn't reach Iranian airspace

Those guys won't use weapons unless somebody attacks them directly.

[razors edge]

56. They don't have to use weapons

just supply them from Russia and deny financing from China.

These countries have shoulder fired anti-tank and anti-aircraft that can stop us in our tracks after we have spread our forces out and can only resupply by air.

We are seeing the beginning of this in Iraq as we speak, convoys are too dangerous, troops must be huddled together in small zones, and helos falling faster by the week.

[Selatius]

58. That's not the same as Russia and China's air forces getting into the fray.

The US will win in a tactical sense but lose the strategic position in the Middle East and the world. The economic devastation is likely to be worse than anything Iran's military could throw at us, and if war is to come, it will likely be an air war as opposed to large formations of massed troops on the ground.

With respect to Chinese retaliation, I agree that they could or probably would stop purchasing US Treasury bills in retaliation for attacking a state that they've invested billions in in terms of oil resources, but China's air force getting into the fight? Not likely.

[razors edge]

60. Thats what I think too.

Probably why we haven't done something stupid already.

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. What do you imagine Bush's tacit objective to be in an air-only war?

So Bush keeps bombing Iran because he can't invade due to terrain and logistics. Then what? Iran is a huge country.

You can't just "bomb it until the government ceases to exist".

Meanwhile, Bush has to take territory because the Iranians will retaliate with Sunburn missiles fired from mobile missile launchers and, in all likelihood, decoy silos. That's why Iran has not said exactly how many Sunburns it has, yet rather credulously we are supposed to believe that they have stockpiled all their existing Sunburns on the tiny Island of Abu Musa.

[Rick Myers]

17. Iran's Air Force has been in neglect for many years

While most of their AF is obsolete, Iran has produced some of it's own fighters over the past 10 years, but they are basically from stolen US and Russian designs. Their best fighter is no better than a US-made F-5.

The BIGGEST threat the US Air Force and Navy face is from Iranian surface to air and surface to surface weapons.

[sarge43]

19. Quite good

Until the Shah was kicked out, we were training a fair share of their personnel. Their senior military is US manufactured. No, they don't have ICBMs, but they could make life interesting in the Middle East, especially for Israel.

[LSK]

20. cant be that bad if we sell them parts

[Joe for Clark]

23. I was thinking they do have left over F-14s.

Tomcats. And we did sell parts to Iran, apparently.

So maybe they would last 49 hours.

Joe

[LSK]

24. who would last 49 hours?

Our sitting duck carriers in the Gulf?

[Bucky]

26. Our carriers would NOT be sitting ducks. Pu-lease.

Oil tankers, yes. Fixed targets in the Iraq, yes. But our carriers are more than able to defend against Iran's Air Force. We would win the war and lose the peace again.

[Recursion]

32. Really? How well has AEGIS been tested?

You willing to stake several thousand lives as well as 2/3rds of our ability to project force overseas on those cruisers?

Aircraft carriers are boxers -- as long as they keep the enemy at arm's length their fine; once they get in close they can get hit really hard. Forget planes and silkworms and exocets for a second: it just takes 2 guys in a Zodiac with a quarter-ton of C4 to disable a carrier. Send out 25 of them, maybe 1 or 2 get through. And that would change a lot of these equations drastically.

[Joe for Clark]

34. Oh Bucky is very correct.

Has nothing to do with winning a war - has to do with the "smartness" of staying a little out of range. Surviving.

You ever been on a carrier - I have - those commanders are really smart. They are surely smart enough to stay just a little out of range of anything comming at them. I was impressed. And frankly, if I didn't think so I'd say it - and equally it would give me the willies.

There is a truth - our army is totally used up at this point - I think so. But our air force and our navy really are the best in the world. Nobody can touch them. And if that wasn't true - I really think we'd be in a death spiral we would not pull out of. It is not quite there yet.

Joe

[Pavulon]

37. That would mean we operate in open water

at 30 plus knots. Not good zodiac conditions. I worked with a guy who served on a cruiser when they were mining the gulf in the eighties.

They would use radar guided weapons 5" and smaller to lock onto and destroy little Iranian boats.

We are not putting carriers in th straights.. The planes have massive ranges and can allow the carrier to stand off and lay waste to a country.

They carry thousands of tons of conventional weapons.

[Bucky]

62. The exchange would look like M.Gandhi vs the British Empire, writ large

Navy and Marine bombers would hit 'em and hammer 'em and flatten every stationary asset they've got. Their air force would last something like a week, if they were dumb enough to put it up into the air. Our navy would sink everything they could put on the water. Their only strength would couldn't counter is their missiles, which would cause problems in Iraq and probably Saudi and Kuwait before we could pinpoint them and take out their launch batteries, probably including their mobile units (but the big ones that can hit Europe will be the first we knock out). After all that, after about three weeks worth of cat and mouse missiling, then we would be at liberty to go back and pulverize anything we thought might be a target and smash and smash and smash.

And despite all that, Iran would win.

The problem here is not any weapon system Iran has or is trying to develop. The problem is not that elements in Iran are supporting a handful of Shia extremists (and moreso in the British "held" south of Iraq than in our areas). The problem is public perceptions. The world thinks we're nuts. Any confrontation now, at any level of intensity, will turn the US into a pariah nation. It's not a matter of us losing a possible future confrontation. The reality is, we're already lost. The only way we can even salvage a tie here is if we pay off the Iraqis and help Europe and Russia corral Iran into inspections. But we've probably even lost the ability to play bad cop in those talks.

[GreenZoneLT]

87. The other problem is, Iran doesn't NEED a military

We can't occupy Iran; it's too big and world opinion would be too opposed. And Iran can hit us with terrorist attacks, through Hezbollah and their own quite sizable intel network. It's really a moot point whether the Iranian conventional military is any good.

[Big Pappa]

64. What is

the range of a Zodiac? Carriers stay hundreds of miles offshore.:shrug:

[GreenZoneLT]

86. OK, that's just silly

25 Zodiacs full of C4 are 25 holes in the water if they get within three miles of any U.S. warship. We've got 25mm chain guns for short-range self defense, plus the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx Gatling guns.

500 pounds of HE at waterline level against a carrier wouldn't even slow it down, anyway. A destroyer, sure, but carriers are freakin' huge. WWII carriers took up to a half-dozen bomb strikes and kept operating, and those were half the size of our current ones, with wooden flight decks.

Aegis has been constantly tested for the two decades it's been in the fleet. The most real-world test was against Libya, a military comparable to Iran. Resulted in some splashed MiGs and blown-up missile boats, without any of them getting anywhere close to the carrier.

Iran's military isn't any better than Iraq's was in 1991, and you saw how that turned out.

[Recursion]

89. Ummm... think back 7 years

25 Zodiacs full of C4 are 25 holes in the water if they get within three miles of any U.S. warship.

Any warship not named Cole, you mean?

[Joe for Clark]

30. The entire Iranian air force.

As soon as they get up they will get knocked down - they really will.

Their missles might do better. Their fighter planes do not have a prayer in hell.

Joe

[razors edge]

40. They could not hit the US

in a way that would remove us from the theater, But I don't think for a moment they have not thought of every contingency we can come up with, our stuff ain't that unknown to intelligence as we have demonstrated it all to willingly for no good reason other than to demonstrate it for potential clients.

They have one thing we don't, several hundred thousand boots on the ground.

They will head straight for Iraq, and as long as we are not annihilated on the ground, Israel will not have anyone to deal with except Syria, Hez, and anyone else with nothing but time on their hands.

Aegis targets something like 50 incoming targets simultaneously, and if it gets tied up with 200 targets of low priority a sunburn could send a world of hurt down on 3000 sailors.

That would probably bring out the nukes for bush.

With or without nukes it could drag out long enough for Russia and China to decide to get involved. Russia with supplies and China just has to call in our debt.

No, the planes wont hit us here, the fiat currency will.

[Joe for Clark]

41. No, but they don't need to.

What makes you think they are any smarter than B*sh was dumber??

Not the point though, is it??

Joe

[razors edge]

43. No, Just worried about the

guys on the ground in Iraq with chewed up gear getting hit with a wave of pissed of Iranians, as I think you are also.

what really happens after that nobody really knows, thats war.

[Joe for Clark]

46. That is just right.

They don't need to come to our shores. Our kids are just a few miles over the border.

I really have little faith in technology fighting human waves of pissed off people.

We do think the same.

Joe

[razors edge]

47. Semper Fi

You have a son over there don't you?

[Joe for Clark]

48. Yes I do.

And my dad (and many of my honorary uncles) were american fighter pilots.

Joe

[razors edge]

49. I was a Phantom Fixer

My former Iranian bro in law tried to get me to go to Iran in 86 after I got out to work on theirs, BIG BUCKS. Camel steaks and sleeping under the birds didn't appeal too much and still don't.

Hope all are well and rotating home soon for good.

[Joe for Clark]

50. You probably did the right thing.

On a personal note - I wonder what that tates like(camel). I will not eat anything that doesn't come from cattle. Not Lamb or anything - but I do wonder about it.

I once suckered one of my kids into trying buffalo - told him it was beef - to find out what it tastes like - cause I sure wasn't going to try it first.

So - what is it like??

Joe

[razors edge]

53. Same here, Ribeye Rulz.

Never tried camel and some deer is a bit to gamy for me.

Watched Red Dawn last night (I was really bored) and I kinda hoped I would never have to eat venison or rabbit or squirrel again. Grew up on a farm.

But sometimes I think we will end up in a national bankruptcy or worse that will have all of us going back to ground.

I live in Toledo, guess I could trap a squirrel now and then but they won't last long.

[Joe for Clark]

55. I learned - don't eat deer - tastes like crap.

(born in Deer Hunter country, myself) Alligator tastes like chicken (I never really liked chicken)

Snake - also like chicken.

If it looks gamy - it probably is.

Cows -ok, bacon and pork loin - ok. Otherwise I am a vegetarian.

Doesn't mean I don't want to know - I am just not very adventerous.

I will take other peoples opinions before I will try it.

Joe

I will say - apparently, buffalo is ok. Then again, my kids are part Souix. I am not.

[AngryAmish]

78. France said that in WWI

Massed people die in modern warfare.

Movement and precise firepower win.

see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System>

Anyone in a square kilometer not under cover dies. Human wave attacks only works against folks who can't control their artillery.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. Um, that's not applicable... there is no front line between Iran and Iraq.

Waves of hundreds of thousands of soldiers do not need to "mass" to get over the border. All they need to do is take over the border posts without a shot (staffed by Iranian-funded Shi'ite secret service militias like the Badr brigades, who control the city of Basra and whose main training camp is inside Iran) and hitch a ride into town, or more likely, walk 30 miles through fields and ditches, separated into individual squads, and converge on pre-arranged safe houses. The US government can turn the entire border region into hamburger and it will not be enough, because the local population of Shi'ite Iraq is already armed and infiltrated in militias funded by Iran and prepared to do anything it takes to assist the hundred thousand "foreign fighters" from Iran, who will get over the border the same way the much, much fewer "foreign fighters" from Al Qaeda did!

It's not like the situation in Khuzestan which is a much smaller area where the US and Iran would both be able to set up (and defend) an entrenched front line at the edge of the Zagros Mountains.

[Bucky]

25. It would be serious ownage on our part. They're outclassed and outnumbered.

The problem would not be military competition. The problem would be the diplomatic knock-on effects.

America instigating a war with Iran would turn us into a pariah nation... we would be more screwn than freeper.

[SoCalDem]

28. "good" enough to pound Israel..thus "lighting the match"

That's all *² really wants.. a reason to nuke any and all in the middle east so he can meet jesus in the rapture .

[Emit]

29. I don't know, but Iran launched a sub-orbital rocket for scientific research

yesterday:

Did Iran Launch a Rocket Into Space?
Iran fires research rocket not space missile: agency, Reuters

"Iran has launched a sub-orbital rocket for scientific research not a missile capable of reaching space as earlier reported, an aerospace official told an Iranian news agency on Sunday."Iran rocket claim raises tension, BBC

"Iranian media say the country has successfully launched its first rocket capable of reaching space. But officials later said it was for research and would not go into orbit. Experts say if Iran has fired a rocket into space it would cause alarm abroad as it would mean scientists had crossed important technological barriers."

Iran's Sputnik, Aviation Week & Space Technology (29 January 2007)

"Iran has just completed conversion of a powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. But the 25-30-ton rocket could be a wolf in sheep's clothing to test longer-range Iranian missile technologies. The Bush administration will likely view the vehicle as a rogue rocket developed in a cabal of Iran and North Korea. The new launcher has recently been assembled and "will liftoff soon," says Alaoddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

"http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/02/did_iran_launch.html

More:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2007-02-25T130353Z_01_BLA533629_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-SPACE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[theboss]

31. Posters here need to grasp the concept of "force projection"

Because it comes up every time the US starts rattling its sabres at someone. It does not matter how good your men or your equipment are if you do not have the ability to send it where it needs to be. What makes the US military so dominant is that we can get our forces to where they need to be. Hell, we were launching bombing raids on Afghanistan from Missouri (or Nebraska...can't remember).

In this case, Iran has neither the forces nor the force projection. Though they should certainly be able to launch a more feasible defense than Iraq.

[sweetheart]

35. what's to grasp

an asshole punches with his fist, 1 inch in front of your face.

ooh, what a macho asshole.

[Pavulon]

36. Half trillion a year

Buys jets that radar cant see. cruise missiles. The ability to sustain 3-4 thousand sorties a day.

I havent seen a tomahawk fly in a while. I bet we stocked right back up.

We have the ability shoot down anything that flies over iran. Blow anything that moves on the ground. Kill massed troops and generally create havoc.

There are many types of wars. CI ground wars (like the second half of the iraq war), and air war.

In one you want hearts and minds and to convince people you are there to help, we have been fucking that up pretty consistently. In the other you just kill people and equipment.

That being said, there is no advantage for the US or Iran to enter a war.

[fujiyama]

39. Not much more to add

As others said, their Air Force is in really poor shape.

The real threat is to our troops stationed in Iraq. Iran's influence over Shiite militias would make life for them even worse than it is now.

Also, it's possible Hezbollah and other related "cells" around could be called upon to launch terrorist attacks on American interests worldwide. Iran would likely also launch some missiles at Israel and it's unlikely Israel would sit back like they did during the Gulf War when Saddam launched some scuds at them.

Of course, then there are the diplomatic and economic consequences. Oil prices will shoot up. The value of the dollar will fall and this nation will be hated much more than it is now. Long term relations with the Muslim world would be especially badly damaged strengthening the power of fundamentalists and extremists like Ahmedenijad all throughout the region. Any attempts at reform would be gone for the forseable future.

[Rex]

42. Against 4 carrier groups? 4fetaboutit!

They can do damage, no doubt. BUT. No one compares to our military. Believe me, they WANT to spend as much as we do and have such wonderful hardware. How bout 6 carriers? 8?

I don't think Iran could hit us with military weapons. Guerrilla tactics? Oh most def. Homeland Security is a farce.

[MrSlayer]

44. How shallow is the ocean? How cold is the sun?

We probably wouldn't lose a single fighter to them and they'd never get to our borders.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. We wouldn't lose a single fighter?

Well, let's see. So far in Iraq we've lost an A-10, an F-14, an F-15, and F-16, and F-18, a Harrier, other fighters, and transports, and numerous helicopters.

And that's just ground fire.

Hmm.

[Joe for Clark]

51. Not air-to-air- we won't.

Not one.

Joe

[razors edge]

57. After we took out Iraq as a threat in 91,

they didn't need an air component. No opponent that they had a chance in the air with presented a threat.

They won't waste the manpower launching unless a suicide mission provides a diversion for a larger goal.

Who would?

[Joe for Clark]

67. That terrorist component is overrated.

There is a logic to war. If you can't hold a territory, you have nothing.

Remember, the United States has not fought a major war since 1945. We really haven't been so threatened. You see, the day we are is the day that "controlled war" ends. And that will be a very bad day indeed for people who misunderstand our culture. They would totally misunderstand Viet Nam.

If there really is ever a day that our country is really threatened - then we look at total war.

Say it does happen - you how long it will take us to irradicate a country off the map?? Not more than 45 minutes - and I mean for generations.

I do not want to see that ever happen. But I understand we can. Scary.

We still are a violent society - even today. And we invented "total war".

Joe

[razors edge]

70. Which is why,

as hard as it will be, the collapse of our banking system is the best we can hope for now. Less bombs need to fall to end the madness.

Sounds crazy but, until there is nothing left to steal, the thieves won't stop abusing a system that rewards theft, and is owned by the largest thieves.

Russia paid off their debts a little while ago and are now reasserting themselves as a member of the worlds nations to be taken seriously.

[Joe for Clark]

71. Doesn't sound crazy to me at all.

If there really was an FDR out there - I would give everything I have to get him in power - everything. This is more dangerous to our country than even 1939 - it really is.

I think.

Joe

[razors edge]

74. Dr Paul seems to know his shit

But he will never get the nations support from the left or right.

I can't say I would put him in charge if it were up to me cause I don't think we are ready for the tough love of another FDR type.

We gotta struggle down this road a little while longer and hope the Myans just got tired and gave up on that calender.

:)

[Joe for Clark]

75. All in all - I want FDR back.

I can live thru the "tough love" part.

[razors edge]

80. Works for me.

All our so called adults can't seem to tie their shoes without an exhaustive weather forecast.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. Since we couldn't hold territory in Iran, your point is?

Of course America is a violent culture, willing to massacre every last man woman and child of its enemies, just like every other human nation on the face of the earth when you give them the toys to work with. That is just what people are like.

But since we can't get armor over the hump and can only resupply them by air, it seems to me we'll be spending an awfully long time doing beach landings and not hold any territory except for the oil wells along the coast. Meanwhile the Iranians will fire missiles with impunity from mountain redoubts, just like the Taliban are doing.

They will retreat to their privileged sanctuary of the Persian plateau, where vast distances couple with a large population and no defensible, re-supplyable ground routes to the sea. Assaulting that, or bombing it "into submission" would have the same effect as assaulting Russia during WWII.

[Joe for Clark]

93. Point is that this isn't WWII -

We have no national emergency. Our standing army is less than 500,000 - and they are worn out.

SO, as it stands you are certainly right. I don't think what is left of our army could take anything.

BUT - if the situation does arise, a genuine national emergency. This country will mobilize. If we had to, and we believed in it - there is absolutely no force on this earth that could stop us.

I think that is the point.

Joe

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. Wel yes, but that means Bush is willing to suffer an "initial military setback"

In order to get peoples' blood pumping.

Then he will move straight to nukes, since drafts don't seem to be his thing.

Of course, I doubt the generals would carry out the order, Nixon-style,

having already isolated the US by invading Iran.

[Joe for Clark]

96. The point is the man is an idiot and has no understanding

of our people.

If some one really did push our buttons, this country will react instinctively. Violently.

Effectively.

And we know when we are getting played, too.

I don't know what this is really that is going on in Iraq - but it is not a war. Just some very sick game.

Totally agree with the sentiment. And the officers will revolt at some point - I am dead sure.

Joe

[MrSlayer]

61. I was speaking in terms of dogfighting.

Your point is taken.

[Selatius]

52. Iran's air force comprises 300 warplanes and various support/transport aircraft

Chinese MiG-19s
Chinese MiG-21s
American F-4 Phantoms
American F-5 Tiger IIs
American F-14 Tomcats
Russian MiG-23 Floggers
Russian MiG-29 Fulcrums (A and UB models)
Russian Su-22s
Russian Su-24MKs
Russian Su-25Ks
French F-1 Mirages
Iran's own fighter plane, the Azarakhsh

Nearly all of these models are outdated except the MiG-29s; however, I doubt their electronic countermeasure package is up to date. Hell, their Su-24s and Su-25s aren't meant for air-to-air combat. Most of these warplanes will likely be destroyed on the ground by incoming US cruise missiles. They likely won't know we are at war with them until after the missiles land on their runways and on their warplanes. If we parked 3 aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea, those 3 carriers alone could wipe out the Iranian air force.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

[Joe for Clark]

59. Neat the way you pulled this up.

I am impressed.

You don't really think we need three carrier groups to take this motely group out, do you??

Fulcrums are good planes - otherwise, what a turkey shoot. And that is if their pilots are any good.

36 hours maybe.

Joe

[Selatius]

63. 3 achieves numerical parity with Iran's air force (roughly 90 aircraft on each carrier)

The cruise missiles can take most of these warplanes out of action if we hit the runways. We have 2 aircraft carriers on station right now.

If we weren't relying on any land-based aircraft, 3 seems more logical, since there might be a problem with securing air force bases in the region from sabotage and mortar attack by Iranian agents in theater. We can't even secure the Green Zone from mortar attack. 3 seems more in line with the Powell Doctrine anyway, but we could likely do it with 2 with back up from land-based aircraft in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.

[DemoTex]

65. Vis-a-vis the US carrier groups, it ain't the Iranian AF. It's the Sunburns.

The Sunburn missiles are Aegis-jinking, 2.1 Mach ship-killers. We might have counter-measures, but I think we are baiting a surface-to-sea missile attack.

[Selatius]

66. This is why the US carriers operate in the Indian Ocean instead of the Persian Gulf.

As an admiral, it makes more sense to be out of their range of fire.

[Joe for Clark]

69. But that is just what they do.

They just need to be a little out of range of a missle system. Cause those F-18s won't be.

They are smart. I met some, I think they are.

And god knows dad never thought much of navy officers. I do. Air force officers too.

Those guys are really, really good.

Joe

[razors edge]

77. What do you think

the chances are someone has developed a sunken torpedo?

One that lays on the bottom and waits for a magnetic signature of 100 tons or so and can be dropped from fast movers.

They would take out tankers and more, cost very little, and be a real pain in the ass to shipping in a confined area.

If nobody has, I am applying for the patent in the morning.

[Joe for Clark]

79. Been done.

killing is pretty impersonal.

I have a problem with killing anyone except in self defense.

You know we have magnetic sweepers, right??

Joe

[razors edge]

81. Yeh

but i'm thinking passive signature acquisition activating a ceramic torpedo.

And I agree about killing but we all gotta protect our own. And I just suspect that all the tech compiled has favored a return to small, inexpensive ways to counter high-tech, high dollar shit. I am not advocating anything just wondering why people don't think that cultures that eclipse ours in longevity are capable of looking at the simple things. Our Military Industrial Complex doesn't mess with cheap stuff, no profit. The enemy will not be so constrained and to ignore this is stupid.

If all it takes to get us to drop a million tons of depth charges is to dump old cars on the sea floor here and there, no one would fear our Naval exercises and we would be chasing our tails without hope.

[Joe for Clark]

92. You make a strong argument.

Joe

[walldude]

72. Some good insight on this thread from the other night

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x282858

I asked basically the same question but I was not as polite about it...

[Joe for Clark]

73. You really didn't ask the same question, I don't think.

[meldroc]

76. They have all sorts of different aircraft.

Most of them are older. They have lots of F-4 Phantoms, F-5 Tigers and they have about 20 F-14 Tomcats bought back in the days of the Shah. More recently, they acquired a couple squadrons of MiG-29 Fulcrums from Russia (which are probably their best fighters,) and they even have a few of their own designs. They also have aircraft from China, France and elsewhere.

They have a lot of missiles, which is what makes them dangerous. They have hundreds of Exocet anti-ship missiles, which will effectively shut down the entire Persian Gulf. While U.S. warships can probably defend against them (if they're quick,) civilian ships such as oil tankers don't stand a chance. For threatening U.S. carrier battle groups, they have the Moskit, aka Sunburn anti-ship missile, which has a greater range, bigger warhead, more sophisticated guidance, and a top speed well over Mach 2. It was explicitly designed to defeat Aegis defense systems on U.S. warships.

Long and short is that while the U.S. will likely beat down the Iranian air force fairly quickly, they'll likely lose a couple frigates or destroyers, maybe even a carrier, and oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf will grind to a halt, driving the world economy into chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_Air_Force_aircraft

[Gwerlain]

84. Not particularly good, and no they couldn't. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

90. Not good enough

:D

[JCMach1]

91. Their command and control would not be as good

by any means...

[gravity]

95. Iran doesn't have a chance ahainst the US

Our planes are the most sophisticated in the world. With the new f22s, we can destroy their whole airforce without them even seeeing us.

Even if their technology is the same as ours, our pilots are better trained and should have no problem against the Iranians.

Where do you think all of our wasted tax money goes to?

[Kelly Rupert]

97. It is, in a word, irrelevant.

Iran's air force is outclassed and outnumbered by the American air force. They possess no strategic bombing capability, if that's what you're asking. If you're asking about their local offensive capabilities, then the answer is, for all intents and purposes, the same. I honestly doubt they'd be able to fire a shot.

[Bobbie Jo]

98. Not much use, if they can't take off...

As I'm sure the airstrips would be the first targets taken out. :nuke: