|
|
Iran Wants 250 Russian Heavy Fighters
By: fromPоrtugal on: 26.07.2007 [17:24 ] (3878 reads)
|
Russia's Rosoboronexport(ROE) is close to signing a defense order with Iran that may be the largest in more that three decades
... this sale is reportedly an order for 250 Sukhoi SU-30MK fighters, the largest order ever made at any one time for this aircraft.
Picture: The new venezuelan SU-30MKV fighters
|
|
(4378 bytes) [nc]
|
|
With Its U.S. Jets Aging Iran Appears to Be Close to a 250-Sukhoi Order
Show News has learned that Russia's Rosoboronexport(ROE) is close to signing a defense order with Iran that may be the largest in more that three decades. A number of advanced Russian systems have been on the Iranian shopping list for some time, including the Almaz-Antei S-300 series of long-range SAMs, and Iran is in desperate need of finding substitutes for its fleet of 1970s-era American fighters.
The centerpiece of this sale is reportedly an order for 250 Sukhoi SU-30MK fighters, the largest order ever made at any one time for this aircraft. It is unclear what the configuration of the aircraft would be, however. Recently, Irkut delivered its first SU-30MKM versions of the aircraft to Malaysia - an "Islamic" version based on the Indian Air Force's Su-30MKI sans its Israel Kit.
But this variant of the aircraft contains European content from Thales and others, and it is unclear that the French avionics maker would do business with the Iranians while Tehran refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program. In the past, Thales officials have declined to discuss other military business with Iran, such as an upgrade program for the IRIAF's Mikoyan MiG-29 fleet.
Iran had been interested in a licensed production agreement to manufacture the MiG-29 and Tupolev Tu-334 and had close to signing a deal, but negotiations reportedly collapsed over constantly shifting demands by the Iranian side. Sukhoi and its associated production plants, KnAAPO and Irkut, have a good deal of experience in setting up a licensed assembly agreements. Also, over the past ten years or more, ROE has continued to mantain good relations with Iran - positioning itself for just this kind of sales opportunity.
link
New orders for Yak-130
The Yak-130 combat trainer has racked up another 82 firm orders to add to the 76 already announced for the Algerian and Russian Air Forces, says Oleg Demchenko, president of Irkut Corp. Although the customers are not being disclosed for the time being, they all come from countries that are currently operating Russian combat trainers, he says.
Developed by the Yakovlev Design Bureau, which is part of the Irkut enterprise, the two-seat trainer is currently undergoing its final flight trials, says Demchenko.
The first six of Algeria’s order for 16 Yak-130s will be delivered next year with the balance of 10 following in 2009. The Russian Air Force has a contract to take 12 Yak-130s so far while Demchenko says the Russian Ministry of Defence has a commitment for a further 60 of the type.
Demchenko estimates there is a market demand for some 1,200 combat trainers up to 2025 and believes the Yak-130 can capture at least 100-180 of these.
As the show started, the first two Su-30MKM multi-role fighters for the Malaysian Air Force were dispatched to the south-east Asian state. Irkut is producing 28 of the type for Malaysia. A slightly modified version of the aircraft, the Su-30MKI, is being produced for the Algerian Air Force. It will receive 12 fighters shortly and a further six by year-end, says Demchenko.
link
These news are interesting. i'm not getting official statments anywhere, but the fact is the same happened, for Venezuela, Syria, Algeria etc.
And it makes sense, i always questioned myself why Iran is not buying one of the most dangerous fighters in the world with huge capabilities.
Probably big pressures from some known states, the nuclear case, etc.
But with the deterioration relations between Russia and US, and the better Russian's position today, is giving Putin space to manouver and oil revenues is giving Iran the money to buy.
Iran already received russian Tor-M systems, have russian submarines, russian fighters, it's time to get the S-300 or the 250 SU-30MK
More "good" news for Bush, if it is the case, his aircraft carriers start to have a lot of no-go zones.
Please not the curious of the second article, some undisclosed costumers have bought 82 trainer jets, so who is needing so much trainers? it really make me think that the Iran's purchase could be something true.
Comments by FromPortugal
by truth-be-told on 26.07.2007 [18:44 ]
|
|
|
would iran need france to upgrade russian aircraft ? can't russia upgrade russian aircraft ?
|
by truth-be-told on 26.07.2007 [18:54 ]
|
|
|
i'd love to see those su-30mkir's flying over the southern limits of the arabian sea, showing the flag!
maybe india or russia would sell them the brahmos missile to arm them. that would get the us navy's attention!
|
by fromPоrtugal on 26.07.2007 [19:46 ]
|
|
|
It is not an upgrade. Client can choose some components, they could be russian or foreigner.
Author is not clear and is only referring to a specific model.
Regards,
FromPortugal
|
by djandjolik on 26.07.2007 [20:47 ]
|
|
|
there is no dictionary that call "enemy". This is billion Euros business not dollar aka toilet papers, no body want to be left behind in this kind of deal of the century but they just don't want publications. Note: only those "criminals" in the WH don't want to see a business deal with Iran sovereign government.
|
by Syrian on 27.07.2007 [01:22 ]
|
|
|
The fact that the customers are undisclosed and a person from Irkut is named leads me to believe that news is true.
Trainers are one of the most important parts of an Air force.
|
by richardstevenhack on 27.07.2007 [02:16 ]
|
|
|
will Iran get them in time? It takes time to do such a deal, then you have to deliver, then you have to integrate into your force structure, train the pilots, set up the logistics for parts, set up your maintenance systems, deploy to your air bases, etc.
Can Iran do this in time when Bush is likely to attack Iran sometime in the next 6-18 months?
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [03:03 ]
|
|
|
All Iran has to do is be able to do is to stave off the US airforce for a few hours so that we can take our scientists to a safe place from being bombed.
We can always rebuild.
If we can save just half of our scientists, the US mission will be a failure.
We don't need an airforce as strong as theirs in order to remove their incentive for attacking.
|
by iron_clay on 27.07.2007 [06:54 ]
|
|
|
Although your not living there your thinking is not as I'd expect here.
If the delivery dates are too late, then the aircraft are useless.
If the sites are successfully bombed and destroyed, then you are back at the stone age.
If Iran hasn't already got it's scientists in very safe and moble places that move daily, then you'll be lucky to wake up to the stone age.
These aircraft should have already been landed on Iran dirt.
A defence in the future is no defence at all ... especially with the way "some other nations" stall on production due to U$ pressure.
The best defence is to counter and destroy twice what your enemy takes of your's.
I like to take double that in the first run ... and the outcome is always "a great deal of respect" for the second run ... if it's needed.
If Iran is snapped out here with a sudden Israeli attack you can kiss the nuke power history for the next 900 years.
World war 4 will be sticks and stones.
Neal
|
by djandjolik on 27.07.2007 [07:40 ]
|
|
|
than Iraq, its bigger geographically and most populated and control the passage of oil pathway in and out the gulf. The attack will have great consequences for the Europe and China, Japan and Korea to lesser extent other small countries that need oil from the middle east.
If Iran go war with US and Israel thats mean no oil flowing and that is mean more than US$ 5-6/gallon and the whole world will cried for that and this mean the US at war with the whole world. Once the war star it will take very long war. Just take a look Iraq, even when the US left Iraq the war will goes on because political structure developed during Saddam are gone and neither Shiah nor unny will be accepted.
Iraq now and future are the factory for group of islamic fundamental that hate the west and western culture. This group a.k.a terrorist will flourist in the fragmented country like Iraq where the population is mixed with two fundamental religious. Once the US left Iraq its mean the end for US influence in the region and the whole sultanate (Kuwait, Oman, UAE) and kingdom (Saudi) will be gone. Iran and Iraq at war in prohibitively costly for Asia and Europe. Its certainly the end of the US.
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [08:17 ]
|
|
|
that Russia seizes the opportunity provided by a US/Israeli attack on Iran to "justify" a Russian attack on the Saudi oilfields, rendering them useless. ( A attack combining first precision attacks and them carpet bombing would be most effective.) With this one BOLD move, Russia would become the largest exporter of oil, and would dictate not only the global price of oil, but also the CURRENCY in which it is denominated.
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [08:18 ]
|
|
|
that Russia seizes the opportunity provided by a US/Israeli attack on Iran to "justify" a Russian attack on the Saudi oilfields, rendering them useless. ( A attack combining first precision attacks and them carpet bombing would be most effective.) With this one BOLD move, Russia would become the largest exporter of oil, and would dictate not only the global price of oil, but also the CURRENCY in which it is denominated.
Such an attack, launched from bases in southern Russia, like Grozny, is quite feasible!
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [08:26 ]
|
|
|
We have our own indigenous military industry. Iran should take the money for these Migs and put them into domestic R & D.
What we currently have is sufficient to hold off their control of the skies until we get our scientists to safety.
Then we can rebuild very quickly since we already have the knowledge. We can develop even faster then because we will no longer be bound by the restrictions of the NPT, and we won't have to disclose the location of our sites as we are currently doing.
Purchasing the Russian aircraft didn't help Syria in 1982, and it won't help Iran now.
The USA is in no position to attack considering that their economy is faltering, Iran has Shahab 3 that can counterstrike Israel's Dimona, The USA is bogged down in Iraq and has to ask Iran for help, the Strait of Hormuz is vulnerable.
By the time the USA is ready to attack (disengaged from Iraq and improved its economy) Iran will have developed better aircraft on its own, better SAMs, and will have a fully functioning nuclear power capacity.
The USA better just get used to the idea of Iran developing energy with peaceful nuclear power. They can't stop it from happening.
We don't need the Migs. We already have everything we need.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [08:31 ]
|
|
|
Iran has much more territory than Southern Lebanon, has much more rugged terrain to hide things, and has had the means and time to build far stronger underground bunkers.
Israel/USA couldn't even take out all of Hezbollah's underground bunkers. Iran's bunkers are far deeper and stronger and hidden more carefully. With the US aircraft flying about trying to find all the many nuclear sites while Shahabs are overwhelming Israeli Arrow defense systems, and Iranian SAMs are keeping the USA aircraft busy, there will be plenty of time to get most of the scientists to safety.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [08:35 ]
|
|
|
If the above report is true, and Russia is considering selling Migs to Iran, then Iran should buy only 20 or 30 to study and reverse engineer.
However, I doubt that Russia will really sell these to Iran. The USA will probably try to block the sale. They almost succeeded in stopping the sale of the TOR SAM system to Iran.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [08:54 ]
|
|
|
If the USA was able to bomb Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities, they would have done it by now.
They haven't attacked yet because they know that they have a less than 1% chance of successfully knocking out Iran's nuclear abilities completely, while there is a high chance that they will suffer for the attempt.
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [09:39 ]
|
|
|
i love you baby, but you are too close to this to be rational. your arguments reveal your wishes and obscure you're logical capacity. iran does NOT have the capability to forestall, even for a minute, an determined us attack. it would be over before iran even had the opportunity to prepare.
are you aware of how long it's taken china to reverse engineer a turbofan engine? do you know the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan? iran is building turbojet aircraft, 1970's technology! do you really think that can compete?
none of us here want iran to suffer defeat, but as a REAL fighter, one whom has trained, prepared, fought, won, lost , and drawn, I can tell you that underestimating your opponents/overestimating your own capabilities is the most certain method of self defeat. i hate to say this, but it seems that iranian male culture is stuck in a primitive mode of chest thumping. my experience has shown me that chest thumpers are the least capable (intellectually) of adapting to the reality of the battle, when it turns against them, and completely incapable of acknowledging defeat or error.
these are the precise characteristics of GWB! is that a model you wish to emulate?
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [09:56 ]
|
|
|
are the worst example to use to determine the effectiveness of Russian aircraft. syrian pilots aren't trained or capable, they're chosen politically. the entire syrian military is a tool of internal control, not an instrument of foreign policy. they fulfill the role of policemen, not warriors. research the performance of indian airforce russian made aircraft against us aircraft in recent exercises if you want to acquire a more balanced perspective on capabilities. the iranian military should be expected to seek out the best hardware that is available. i say go for the su-35 instead of the su-30. any source you reference that compares the indian su-30(35) to other su-30s being exported say that they are FAR supreior!
the arabs, in general, are a disgrace. please don't equate persians with arabs. i'm not iranian, and that's even an insult to me!
|
by AБ on 27.07.2007 [10:00 ]
|
|
|
Why do you call thes vehicles Migs?
FYI, Sukhoi (Su), Mikoyan (MiG) and Yakovlev (Yak) are the names of Russian aircraft engineers who where the first heads of corresponding companies. These companies are now supposed to merge into united aircraft corporation but still there are different engineering teams behind each brand.
|
by fromPоrtugal on 27.07.2007 [10:43 ]
|
|
|
Hello Iranian-Shi'ite, how are you?
I would like to give my opinion regarding your comments.
All Iran has to do is be able to do is to stave off the US airforce for a few hours so that we can take our scientists to a safe place from being bombed.
I completely disagree. The duty of any government is to protect their people the best way they can. Iran population would be dying with carpets bombing by B-52 and what matters is that iranians scientists are safe? it is important to save your scientists, but much more important is to deny an attack to your country. You do that, with weapons and the best weapons you can afford. You must show to your agressor that an attack will means heavy losses, will mean too much costs for the agressor engage. You must put your agressor in doubt, you must make your agressor thinking twice.
So, denying to your agressor the ability to flying your space is a must. the ability to protect your troops from air is extremely important. And if you can project your power beyond your frontiers and reach your agressor the better is protected your country. If you can make an war outside your country, you will have your military filling their purpose, they are dying knowing their land, their country, their family are protected far from bombs.
If your country manage to defend your frontiers and repell the agressor, the government and their militry have done their job. The country, the people, the children, are safe.
We have our own indigenous military industry. Iran should take the money for these Migs and put them into domestic R & D
Iranian-Shi'ite, in my opinion you have too much confidence in your indigenous military industry. There are much more advanced countries with indigenous military industry and they know that doesn't protect them for some agressors. Don't convince yourself of that, because the reality is a lot diferent. Even Iran show proofs of that, they are buying russian equipment and a few years ago, they were the third large customer for russia hardware.
Purchasing the Russian aircraft didn't help Syria in 1982, and it won't help Iran now
Bad example Iranian-Shi'ite, it is not the question of being russian aircraft, do you really believe that?
The USA is in no position to attack...
They aren't, but Iran needs to plan for the future, if they by 250 planes now, they would at least a decade to have the planes and pilots trained. Meanwhile, while you are developing your aircraft, imagine what others with more advanced hardware are doing, they are not waiting you to catch them, that's for sure.
Israel/USA couldn't even take out all of Hezbollah's underground bunkers...
Don't compare diferent situations. And don't understimate US capabilities. US can be having hard times in Iraq, it may have problems in economy, but their armed forces are intact, you can count the countries that can repell an US attack today.
then Iran should buy only 20 or 30 to study and reverse engineer
If that was the case, then Iran should already have a fleet of US F-14 planes made locally. And you are not seeing that.
If the USA was able to bomb Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities, they would have done it by now.
Iranian-Shi'ite, USA is perfectly able to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the problem is not there, the problem is the consequences of these acts.
My opinion Iranian-Shi'ite,
Regards,
FromPortugal
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [11:01 ]
|
|
|
we're all on your side buddy!
we just want you to try to see things more rationally!
DEATH TO AMERICA!!!
|
by djandjolik on 27.07.2007 [12:09 ]
|
|
|
Iran is when US troop/militarily left Iraq. As long as they are in Iraq and bleeding no danger at all to Iran.
|
by Syrian on 27.07.2007 [13:47 ]
|
|
|
Perhaps some are chosen politically now, but in the past you couldn't be further from the truth.
Please don't lump us into "the arabs", we have little in common with other arabic countries. Take your racist ideals somewhere else, we did pretty well against the israhellis in the past. The only country Iran has fought was Iraq and the conclusion was not decisive (though, Iran just came out of a revolution and Iraq had American backing)
I agree 100% with Iranian-Shi'ite. Iran doesn't need these aircrafts, and neither does Syria. War has moved on from such tactics and only a bufoon would try to win a war purely with aircrafts. A few well placed shahabs would end the war for the zionists and dimona in particular.
Finally, don't try to insult him and the general commentators with something simple like a turbofan/turbojet comparison. He is very well educated and his opinions aren't formed haphazardly.
@fromPоrtugal
The USA will not be able to attack anything beyond Busher. Iran has a vast underground network, bunker buster bombs are bust and won't be able to do anything except heat up the sand. By the time the attack is finished, the Hormuz is closed and the war is over.
"If that was the case, then Iran should already have a fleet of US F-14 planes made locally. And you are not seeing that."
Yeah, we're seeing superior aircrafts which are also partially stealth being developed by Iran.
"Iranian-Shi'ite, USA is perfectly able to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the problem is not there, the problem is the consequences of these acts. "
Ditto for attacking any strong country. I don't see the USA attacking Russia any time soon.
|
by Seele on 27.07.2007 [14:08 ]
|
|
|
There will be a new list of IR video on this page in about 30 min.
The list this time included more than 320 attacks , including a JUBA video -> this time from HJaish Al Mujahedeen and more than 195 Shia IED attacks. Get the links and download as long as the links do exist.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [14:54 ]
|
|
|
"iran does NOT have the capability to forestall, even for a minute, an determined us attack. it would be over before iran even had the opportunity to prepare. "
Then the Russian Migs wouldn't help either. If the US aircraft are able to fly undetected straight to the bomb sites, then the Migs would just get bombed while the nuke sites were getting bombed also. They would just be very expensive pieces of burning metal.
"do you know the difference between a turbojet and a turbofan? "
No, but I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. I'm a computer programmer, not a mechanical engineer. I could do a Wike, but I'd rather hear what you have to say.
do you really think that can compete?
I don't think it needs to be able to beat them. Just delay them.
I'll discuss more later, I have to go to work now.
This is an interesting topic. I hope that knowledgable people offer their input. I just won't be able to respond to all of them.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [15:34 ]
|
|
|
"syrian pilots aren't trained or capable,"
The Syrians were flying blind. Israeli guided missiles had taken out their radar. In the 73 war the Syrians had boots in the Mediterranean.
"I can tell you that underestimating your opponents/overestimating your own capabilities"
I'm not saying we can defeat them. Just delay them. Even in Afghanistan it was several days into the war before US commanders stated that they fully controlled the skies. I'm not placing my predictions on ego, but on objective calculation. If there is an error in my calculations, then I'd be happy to have them shown to me.
"but it seems that iranian male culture is stuck in a primitive mode of chest thumping. . . . the arabs, in general, are a disgrace."
These stereotypes are incorrect. They are simplistic and misinformed. Iranian male culture is not machismo centered. If anything it leans towards the humility and introvertedness with the poetry and mysticism. The Arabs are honest and straightforward. There is no military disgrace with them either considering that Israel had the backing of the USA, England, France, and other powerful Western countries, and despite that the Arabs defeated Israel twice in Southern Lebanon.
"we're all on your side buddy! we just want you to try to see things more rationally!"
I know and I appreciate that. That's why I'm interested in having an unemotional, detached, and objective analysis of the facts.
"Iran population would be dying with carpets bombing by B-52 and what matters is that iranians scientists are safe?"
The USA will not carpet bomb Iranian cities. The public relations aftermath would be a total disaster for the USA. Such an act would be highly illogical, even for the radical Neoconservatives.
"So, denying to your agressor the ability to flying your space is a must."
That's the eventual goal, but to expect to be able to do that now is unrealistic, and the Migs won't help us get there. We need to have realistic goals, and completely securing Iranian skies against F-22 Raptors is not logically feasible. A more realistic goal is to protect the primary target of the aggressor.
more later.
thanks for the comments.
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [16:14 ]
|
|
|
learn the difference between "race" and culture, and then you can kick me outta here. arab military culture is IDIOTIC. who else have the jews kicked around or 60 years?
as for the iran/iraq war. i think iranian shi'ite would have serious differences with you on your analysis of that one. saddam had the support of the entire western world and iran had NO weapons resupply.
proof, baby, is in pudding! syria ain't done a damn thing. who controls the golan? i don't even want to address that 'cause it's moot!
to iranian shi'ite: we've been here before! all i have to offer is my sincere hope that your nation will develop a strong air-defence capability. these su-30s could be another element of that air-defence. ideally though, those s-300s would come in quite handy. if china is buying them, if india is buying them, if even the us bought some to "improve" the capabilities of the patriot system, the s-300s must have something going for them. everybody in the world wants them, why not iran?
sorry to be unkind, but ultimately victory in war don't depend on who's backing whom, but on who's unwilling to lose. VIETNAM didn't quit did they? the MUJAHADEEN didn't quit did they? So, if your country quit fighting and SETTLED with an enemy that TOOK your land, i don't think iran needs to learn a goddamned thing from your culture.
|
by Syrian on 27.07.2007 [16:20 ]
|
|
|
And posses no threat to Iran. B-2, F-117, yes ... F-22 no. The Su-27 with vectorization kits will make it fall out of the sky.
Its the sheer quantity of USAn aircrafts that will be difficult to deal with, but given their wear and the bankrupcy of the USAns, I'm betting the farm on Iran.
|
by Blitzkrieg- on 27.07.2007 [18:26 ]
|
|
|
I'll be the first to admit that Arabs have their problems and arrogance is one of them, but with regard to the military failure keep in mind that Israel is just a small country and the Arabs should have been able to defeat them easily.
So why weren't they defeated? Even if the Arab militaries aren't as advanced, our overwhelming size should have allowed us to overrun Israel long ago.
In 1948 as far as I can tell most Arab countries either underestimated Israel, or in the case of Jordan, just wanted to make a land grab for Palestine and were covertly in agreement with the Israel's (the old King Abdullah, i.e. the british stooge).
In 1967 the Egyptian Generals were too busy to be prepared for war. They were busy of course with important work involving liquor, belly-dancers and hashish. Or so the story goes.
The Egyptian army was capable, but Arab leadership was arrogant, incompetent and stupid, neither properly developing their domestic economies nor a local military industry, nor taking (or not caring) for the Israeli threat too seriously.
Instead they would depend on Russia for weapons, which they would waste in a war and go into debt.
In 1973, the Egyptians and Syrians simulatanously attacked and shocked the world by showing that the so-called Israeli Bar-Lev line, lamented by so many military experts at the time, was surpassed at a far quicker pace than the Israel's estimated.
As I posted before in an old threat, the war was going perfectly and according to plan. During the war, however, Anwar Sadaat, the late Egyptian president changed the plan/objective of the war by deciding to penetrate deeper into the occupied Sina peninsula and out of range of Egyptian SAMs.
This was done despite the objections of the Army commanders and despite the original limited objectives of the plan, which was to hold a strip of the Sinai and keep Israel busy.
How one man like Sadat could usurp an entire army and single-handedly sabotage a war, to me, is the biggest tragedy.
See h ttp://www.el-shazly.com/ for more details. General Saad El-Shazly was one of the main planners of the war, and he wrote against Sadat after the war and was sent to London in an effort to silence him.
Similary, in 1967, how some Generals could be so arrogant and lazy and corrup, is the biggest tragedy.
And lastly, how the Arabs could laud and praise leaders like Jamal Abdel Nasser, who despite all his rhetoric, neither properly developed Arab/Egyptian techonology and industry to decent standards, nor did he develop a proper military industry, choosing instead, to put his faith on the Russian supplier, is the real tragedy.
Our political weaknesses, our weak, corrupt, and trecherous leaders are the main problem. Up to this day there is no proper Arab military industry.
Compare this to the achievements of the Iranians in the last 20 years when they made the intelligent choice of supplying most of their defence needs.
Compare this to a poor country like Pakistan who has an impressive military industy.
Arab armies given the chance can be capable, as groups with limited means (Hizballah and Hamas and IR) have shown, that when determined and organized, and with the LACK OF INTERFERENCE BY CORRUPT TREACHEROUS LEADERS, resistance against the Israelis is a real possibility.
As far as I can see, currently, groups in the Mid-East are the most successful at assymetric warfare (hizb, IR, hamas) given their circumstances (i.e. Opposition from US,Israel, and their own countries). In these unfavourable situations, and left to their own devices, what these groups have acheived and are acheiving are truly impressive given the opposition.
|
by truth-be-told on 27.07.2007 [19:21 ]
|
|
|
a thorough and knowledgeable analysis!
the iranian leadership has, indeed, made wise choices in developing a defense industry.
i only wish to see them focus on those technologies that will neither deter nor forestall US strategy, but defeat it.
i know that, ultimately, this is their wish too!
|
by Deathtodubya on 27.07.2007 [19:43 ]
|
|
|
the Skanks, I don't see how they can do much damage to the Americunts in the air. This isn't a case of getting 20-30 or even 50 s-300 systems. Iran would need a multilayered air defence with hundreds of SAM launchers to cover all rangers and altitudes, the aircraft to defend the skies with the SAM's and to protect the launchers themselves, along with all the radar and countermeasure systems they can find.
People here look at the primitive, idiotic and brutal US military on the ground in Iraq and assume that this translates into all their branches. Sadly, this is not the case. The US airforce is devious and cunning and very thorough in identifying threats to its aircraft and how best to neutralise them so that they can then rain death on the target country with impunity. The Radars, SAM sites, and airbases WILL be the FIRST targets, and the US will use cruise missiles and F-117's to minimise risk to it's aircraft. It's how Iran deals with this initial onslaught that will determine whether the US Air Force has a free reign or will have to take losses, and face substantial disruption to its plans.
In the best case scenario where Iran's Air Defense survives relativelly intact, it will still lead to Iran's defeat in the air war. They just don't have the numbers or the intergrated overlapping Air Fighting network that the US has. Talking that the F-22 is crap for example misses the point. It's not one plane they will face, but thousands and as a famous general once said 'Numbers have their own quality'.
What Iran can do though is make it extremely costly for the US scum, and with no clear success the US will either have to give up or launch a ground invasion which would level the field for the Iranians.
|
by dit on 27.07.2007 [22:12 ]
|
|
|
Excellent analysis about the US' air superiority. The formula for that evil power is basically the same. Their strategy for 'victory' is always based on that air superiority. I am really thinking if everything you have stated is correct then theoretically they courd win an air war agaist even Russia then. Because I don't think even the Russians have all the "multilayered air defence with hundreds of SAM launchers to cover all rangers and altitudes, the aircraft to defend the skies with the SAM's and to protect the launchers themselves, along with all the radar and countermeasure systems ". If the requirement for victory is that high, then no one can win against an aggressive US air war. I think it's not necessary to be able to knock out every single war jet that crosses the sky. But being able to knock at least a third will be very substantial feat. Knock out 1 out of 3 jets and you will see the skanks thinking hard on whether to continue the war. If you can knock 1 of of every two jets then that will definitely be a victory. [][]
'truth be told' please think before you write your vague generalisations. Who are you to give advice to the 'Persians', or to completely discount the whole 'Arab' nation.? You must be someone from a superior race or culture to be able to dish out these types of advices. Please tell us what culture, race, or nation do you hail from?
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [22:25 ]
|
|
|
Is Russia also going to provide R-77 and or K-100 AAMs ?
What is Iran going to fire from those Migs?
Is Russia going to supply AWACS and anti-radar jamming?
Without those little extras, the Migs will be sitting ducks.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [22:26 ]
|
|
|
I meant Sukhoi, not Mig.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [22:34 ]
|
|
|
Don't argue the wrong point.
Some people are arguing that Iran should be able to completely stop the US air force. But as I've said before, that's not realistic at this time.
However, if we can deny the USA their primary objective, then they will have less incentive to attack in the first place.
So, stop trying to say that Iran's air force can't beat the USA. I already know that. I'm saying something entirely different.
I'm saying that we don't need to be able to defeat their air force. All we need to do is to deny them their primary objective, and I've outlined above how we can do that with the current military we have right now.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [22:45 ]
|
|
|
@fromPortugal:
"you can count the countries that can repell an US attack today."
We don't need to be able to repel a US attack in order to prevent them from attacking in the first place.
"USA is perfectly able to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the problem is not there, the problem is the consequences of these acts. "
The consequence of the acts is part of why they are not able to attack. The consequences are part of the deterrent. Denying them their target is another part of the deterrent.
"There are much more advanced countries with indigenous military industry and they know that doesn't protect them for some agressors."
Then these Sukhoi won't really help, will they?
"if they by 250 planes now, they would at least a decade to have the planes and pilots trained. Meanwhile, while you are developing your aircraft, imagine what others with more advanced hardware are doing, they are not waiting you to catch them, that's for sure. "
Well even if we bought the 250 planes, by the time we got our pilots trained, the Sukhoi would be outdated.
If we rely on foreign weapons, we will always be behind, and always getting beaten.
If we develop our own technology, then we can catch up by leap-frogging (building on what is already there). It is easier to imitate existing technology than it is to develop it in the first place, so eventually we will catch up.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [22:49 ]
|
|
|
"The Radars, SAM sites, and airbases WILL be the FIRST targets, "
That's exactly right, and that's what we're counting on. While they're destroying our SAMs, Shahab 3 sites, anti-Ship missile sites, and airbases, that will give us time to get our scientists and the most sophisticated equipment to greater safety.
We don't need to be able to shoot down a single US plane in order to prevent them from attacking.
All we need to do is to deny them their objective which takes away their incentive to attack in the first place.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [22:57 ]
|
|
|
Winning isn't determined by the number of the enemy's pieces you can remove. Winning is achieved by reaching the final objective, the metaphorical check mate.
Stop thinking in terms of "who has the biggest gun" or "the fastest plane." That's all primitive thinking.
Think in terms of reaching the objective that you've set for yourself.
Find a realistic objective, and go for that.
It doesn't matter if they can destroy our entire air force, and we can't even shoot down one of theirs. That's not what we need in order to win.
We win when we prevent them from attacking. We prevent them from attacking by denying them their targets. You don't have to fire a single shot to win the war.
|
by LittleHelper on 27.07.2007 [23:16 ]
|
|
|
@Iranian-Shi'ite
> If the above report is true, and Russia is considering
> selling Migs to Iran, then Iran should buy only 20 or
> 30 to study and reverse engineer.
Please do not mix those two aircraft, they are
a whole fighter generation apart. The Su-30MK is
much more modern, larger and faster than the MiG-29A.
ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29
Pic: ht tp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Soviet_MiG-29_DF-ST-99-04977.JPG
ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
Pic: ht tp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/SU-30ARMARG.jpg
As about reverse engineering the Su-30MK, you can try to do it,
but it won't help, you wouldn't be able to build one yourself.
Only a little example: The blades and some other parts of the
jet engines are made of a very sophisticated heat resistant alloy
based on molybdenum.
It would cost you years to figure out what's their exact
composition, production and heat treatment to reach the
desired material properties.
As about Iran buying those aircrafts, you're probably right,
and Iran should not only buy fighter jets. It would better invest
also in mini-submarines, which would enable her to control the
Strait of Hormuz efficiently. Control over the Strait of Hormuz is
the single most important strategic leverage Iran has.
The west may be completely reluctant about Iran's fate, but
they get extremely nervous, as soon as their oil supply is in
danger.
|
by dit on 27.07.2007 [23:23 ]
|
|
|
Although I admire your posts, I have to disagree with your thinking here. "We win when we prevent them from attacking. We prevent them from attacking by denying them their targets. You don't have to fire a single shot to win the war" You cannot have it both ways. What does your statement even mean? You can make a lot simpler if your goal is to deny them targets. You can act like the Arab Gulf countries who have prevented the Americans from attacking by giving the Americans everything. The Americans want EVERYTHING they used to have under the SHAH. I don't think that's what Imam Khomeiny and his followers intended with the revolution.
believe me you cannot win by NOT firing a single shot.
Metaphor or not, I don't think General Safavi thinks the way you do.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [23:40 ]
|
|
|
"What does your statement even mean? "
Ok, I'll rephrase it.
The USA wins when they stop us from building nuclear energy.
We win when we build nuclear energy.
Even if we shot down every aircraft in the US military, if they found a way to stop our nuclear program, they would win.
Think outside the box. This isn't about who can shoot down the most. This isn't about proving who is the biggest and toughest.
This is about achieving objectives. The USA's objective is to stop our nuclear program. They can try it economically, politically, diplomatically, militarily. However they do it, they achieve their objective if they prevent us from developing nuclear energy.
From our side, our objective is to develop nuclear energy. If we can do that without firing a single shot, then we have achieved our objective.
If we prevent them from attacking, then we can develop nuclear energy. That's not giving them what they want.
This isn't about who has the bigger club. This is about achieving objectives. We don't need to be able to shoot down a single one of their aircraft in order to achieve our objective.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [23:42 ]
|
|
|
"believe me you cannot win by NOT firing a single shot. "
If we prevent their attack and build our nuclear power, then we have won without firing a single shot.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 27.07.2007 [23:53 ]
|
|
|
"It would cost you years to figure out what's their exact
composition, production and heat treatment to reach the
desired material properties."
If it would cost us years then it would be worth it. Besides, we need to start sometime.
|
by dit on 27.07.2007 [23:59 ]
|
|
|
What I am refering to is, if and when the Americans attack then your theoretical thinking (a la chess game) is moot and inapplicable. If you are talking about the political wranglings between the EU and Iran concerning building nuclear issue, then Iran is winning so far. I am talking in terms of an all out war. WAR. The military strategists of Iran better not be thinking the way you are at the moment. They better have something up their sleeve. A surprise or more than one surprise awaiting the would be invaders. And they should plan for a long war.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 28.07.2007 [00:33 ]
|
|
|
"What I am refering to is, if and when the Americans attack"
If the USA attacks then the Sukhoi won't help. What I'm talking about is preventing the USA from attacking in the first place while also building our nuclear power.
"If you are talking about the political wranglings between the EU and Iran concerning building nuclear issue, then Iran is winning so far."
I'm not talking about the IAEA and the UN. I'm talking about succeeding in building nuclear energy.
'I am talking in terms of an all out war. "
Ask yourself, what are the USA's objectives? 1. Regime Change, 2. Stop Iran's nuclear program.
They can't do that with air power alone. They would have to put boots on the ground, and they can't do that while trapped in Iraq.
The USA wouldn't even contemplate a full war. They would plan just an air war. After planning an air war they would not act on the plan because they know that even if they destroy the entire Iranian air force, they still can not achieve their objectives (permanently stopping Iran's nuclear program).
"The military strategists of Iran better not be thinking the way you are at the moment."
I hope the military strategists of Iran realize that they can't beat the USA in a conventional air war, even if they have the Sukhoi. I hope that they realize the best thing to do is to deter the USA from attacking in the first place.
"A surprise or more than one surprise awaiting the would be invaders. "
I'm sure they have plenty of surprises against potential invaders.
|
by poiuytr on 28.07.2007 [00:52 ]
|
|
|
Hello Dear Reader and Truth Seekers
Be sure not to miss one of my greatest hits. It's still available here:
iraq-war.ru/article/136065
This article, which I penned myself, has been given the world-wide honours of receiving an link on the whatReallyHappened.com M Rivero's news index. Don't be left in the dark by the AP, Reuters, CNN, BCC, and other west mainstream sewage mindrape while pieces of this calibre are getting scrolled off into oblivion.
This has been a commercial by me, for me, of me, to me, on me.
Yours as ever
poiuytr
PS:
If you're a human, an actual upright walking species, not the yank skipping monkey with dragging knuckles through the jungle of their war crimes, and if the daily parade of US war crimes, and child killings hurt you, do drop me a line. We're looking for a few cool humans for some cool projects. I'm at yahoo on this email handle zdertyhkiasfqwkjuf445tergx
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 28.07.2007 [01:06 ]
|
|
|
If Russia wants to sell 25 Sukhoi coupled with a viable AWACS system, and KS-172 AAM, and electronic counter-countermeasures, then that would be something.
But just 250 Sukhoi by themselves? That's just target practice for the US air force. We could save money by buying 250 mig-15s and getting the same result: burning metal in the desert.
|
by poiuytr on 28.07.2007 [01:15 ]
|
|
|
Iran is untouchable by the west. Iran's freedom and survival is NOT dependent on some fragmented news about the delivery of a few fighters from Russia.
Iran has been transformed into a international superpower, not just a regional one in the last five or so years.
1) Iran commands several Russian subs. This means that no matter how many Admirals Bush drowns in the Persian Gulf, the Hormuz Strait will be shut down in any aggression by the west on Iran. That means that both the EU and the US have about 3 days of oil before the Autobahn turns into a parking lot and all the Germans are stranded there yodling in their stupid green 'hosen'.
2) Iran commands satellites. This roughly means that should the Pentagon general puppets be stupid enough to follow Cheney's orders, they'll be conducting the entire operation blind with all US satellites shut off. This means that the US bozos will crash into each other while still on the fucking runway considering their proven mental capacity.
3) Iran is huge. Now, go look at the map. It's so huge that even if the entire EU joins the US in the attack, it'll never ever in hundred years be able to occupy it, even if the initial attack did succeed in castrating all Iran's defenses, which it won't.
4) Iran has missiles. These missiles aren't sitting in known stationary silos like most of US missiles from the 70s. These are mobile new Russian mid-range missiles, which fly 3X the speed of any US radar defense system and can reach the US chief whore, the EU. Plus, Topols do split into 10 or so other missiles making them absolutely impossible to catch. My guess is that all have US military GPS coordinates in them, as the US military is sitting withing stone throw distance huddling like a bunch of child-murdering faggots that the US toop scum is, in fully known locations throughout Iraq. Touch Iran and say goodbye to the entire US military contingent.
5) Iran has its own air force and have had Russian fighters for a long time.
The only way Bush could succeed with Iran is if he manages to "take out" the 200 strategic targets, which are moving btw and probably are unknown to the yanks as we speak, and hit them all within a few nanoseconds of one another.
If Cheney fails to do this miracle, missiles will fly and Iran will defend itself against the US all around the world likely starting a WWIII.
The thing that makes Iran untouchable above all is however the fact that the US/UK vermin NEVER EVER takes on anyone armed, strong, or even competent. Their only targets throughout the entire history of these monumentally bloodthirsty child murdering cultures of the anglo saxon barbarian slaver beast are totally defenseless people, hopefully "softened up" by decades of starvations and disease.
The US has never ever attacked anyone who was armed with so much as a rock in their hand. And Iran is not a defenseless child, the favourite prey of the child eating US monster.
The only way the US would go against Iran is through a proxy. But Iraq, the only proxy available, is a total and probably forever an enemy of the US vampire making it very difficult for Bush now to put in some Hussein-like proxy stooge and siccing him on Iran like Kissinger did during the Iraq/Iran wars.
The bottom line is that the Iran is absolutely untouchable entity, unless of course, Bush decides to commit suicide on behalf of the entire west from Prague to Los Angeles. And that is a strong possibility 'cause the last time I looked, he was mad as equestrian brush for extra course bristles.
AD begins:
If you read this far, the chances are you too, even if you're a rumsfeldian shill spreading US hatred through the system, can enjoy more of my fine writing and literary masturbations like in iraq-war.ru/article/136065
AD ends:
|
by djandjolik on 28.07.2007 [05:10 ]
|
|
|
that during desert 1 attack on Iraq not all "scud missile" were destroyed and found in the desert, and Iraq is small country than Iran and practically a flat land. Iran is way much different geographically it has a rugged mountains and more complex in nature.
The other things that consider momentum, Iraqis general were "bribed before attack" a lot of them landed in Jordan, Turki, UAE, Lebanon that's why Saddam army was "melted" a week before the attack. Some of the Iraqis general even gave information of the location to be bombed by putting GPS on the strategic location. Milions US$ were given to Iraqis generals before attack.
Iran is different their general is practically clean and difficult to be bribe and no hand phone can reach them, and more over the trusted army is not in the regular army but a religious fanatic known as "revolutionary guard". This guard command most of land and coastal missiles and guard the nuclear facility and operate air defense system. They are most enjoyed the training in this type of arm. While the regular armed forces consist of jet pilot, and navy.
There is no way the US combine with EU can win the war with Iran. Remember 50-60% of light Arabian derivative of crude oil are: Kerosine diesel, gasoline and jet fuels mostly needed by war machine and transportation. If this crude stop flowing from gulf that mean everything that move must stop too.
So my conclusion no chance to win war with Iran
|
by Sandy on 28.07.2007 [13:12 ]
|
|
|
I wonder if some of us are analysising the scenario from a perspective that is inaccurate.
What is the aim of an attack upon Iran?
What was the aim of the Saddam regime removal?
Who choices what the aims are and the methods?
Who reports and seeks accountability for the events?
Please consider these questions from the perspective of the power groups currently vying for supremacy in the "NWO' group.
Doing so one can see there are:
- the Financial leaders who want credit rich markets and cheap labour to continue the consumer economies, and not to distrupt the credit rich markets and keep stable the currency prefered at the time and the safe havens still safe from scrutiny and tax.this may even mean setting up private "stock markets".
-the oil/gas investors and controllers and developers who wish to continue their imperial like control of such and reap the coming rewards as the product becomes rarer and more expensive,preferably with a monpoly or agreed plan amongst stake holders
-the usual background "criminal " networks and their covert links supplying huge money value in illicit trade such as drugs ,contraband and weaponry as usual
-the hugely powerful military industrial complex and the many international variants and links for such.Eisenhower didn't warn against this group for nothing.Wars and instability and international tensions and targeted invasions are their liquor.many are the major exporter for certain countries.
-other groups with impassioned supporters such as political/religious. Examples of these are the Crusader groups who "fear" the rising influence and penetration of Islam especially shouldChritianity be challenged with evidence of ancient texts, real or fake. the scene has been set for this by various popular culture steps since Jesus Chrit Superstar such as the many Documentaries exploring the "Jesus the man", the "historical Jesus", the many promoted theories about the Challis/Magdalene/notdying etc especially Dan Brown's book etc. Some like Mel Gibson try to counter this in the same popular medium.The other End Series is a distortion of Christianity into a zionist manipulated and funded version that many of the Charismatic follow.when one looks closely at their origins and funding and who their leadership takes orders from, like the well publicised trip of Bauer to Sharon's caommand to control Bush one may guess at who really pulls the strings there. When one reads the Educational material that is put out by these groups for Children one sees an increasing ignoring of Jesus and his teachings and instead an emphasis on the "Old Testament"/Torah and the battles of the "Israelis". I have a Christian Calendar my child brought home which does exactly this to my amazement, initially. It makes sense to subvert and control by money and knowledge of leadership secrets or whatever....various Christian groups that have political power and voting block.
-manipulation of Jewish citizens in various countries to become passionate about Israel the State and expect it to e a single religious state, despite condemning the arab countries in the region that are such.this is done through Synagogue where the Israel State flags flies and it is referred to as central . One could discuss the veracity of doing such but perhaps just consider it may be yet another perversion of an important religion for power and control. the repeated fear propaganda and Holocaust reminders are deliberate attempts to sew distrust and fear and thus separate jewish citizens from others of each country, just as the NAZIs did. This benefits Zionism.
-a combination of zionism/crusader/end days/oil control result in the aim of destroying the fabric of countries that are a threat to Greater israel (and the haifa pipeling to Europe) whilst still maintaining their oil producing ability. The population do not matter ,nor the infrastructure. In fact the latter are a threat as some Empire builders from Countries such as the US may seek to install a close puppet regime that makes the expensive Israel/Saudi alliance redundant, hence the necessity for the destruction of Iraq and dvision. Back to the stoneage for all of Israel's enemies.
-Current events has shown there has been and will be no accountability no matter how or what methods are used to do this( nor how much evidence is in the public domain about the crimes that have happened) as long as the current regimes in place in the "west". This may depend upon what the action of China and Russia will be and how they can be satisfied to allow such carving up of resources and removal of nationhoods.
Thus, I think the only delay is due to uncertainty from Russia and China . I wonder if the Saudi family have seen the writing on the wall despite their "close tribal" connection to the power groups.
Conclusion, without regime change (Real regime change ,with or without accountability)in Aggression nations Iran will be destroyed along with Syria and Lebanon and all the region, even with the sacrifice of the current Israeli population(and removal of the undesirable "demographic problem" at the same time)-there are plenty more to fill the space from outside and if it makes a powerful unattackable state then the usual sacrifice, just like in WW2 of EU Jews, will be made by those so driven .It will be rebuilt but he other states will not.
Ther, that is my depressing analysis. Hopefully completely wrong.
|
by BERNIE on 28.07.2007 [14:39 ]
|
|
|
When the oven gets to hot....... As in Korea & Vietnam these USA pilots were prudent to see that it was better to drop their bombs
in the ocean rather than risk getting blown away. Beleive me
many of these pilots do want to live???????
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
