Skip to comments.
Iran's Mix-and-Match Air Force Still May Have Bite
Aviation Week & Space Technology ^
| 9/11/2006
| Doug Barrie & Andy Nativi
Posted on 09/11/2006 4:58:10 PM PDT by Paul Ross
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
To: Paul Ross
Given the range of Israeli and/or US air to ground missiles, specifically the popeye turbo II and US stealthy JASSM, of which at least 700 are available, I seriously doubt Iranian air defenses are going to be much of a problem. The main Iranian nuclear facilities, specifically Isfahan, Natanz, and the Arak heavy water plant, are in a somewhat concentrated area of Iran. US aircraft flying from the big airbase in Qatar would have to penetrate only a few hundred kilometers of Iran to reach their launch points. If they were really worried they could take out the runways of three or four airbases to pave the way. Iran is a pretty big country. It is highly unlikely that their air defense system is capable of enough coverage to prevent aerial infiltration along a score of different routes.
21
posted on
09/11/2006 6:08:00 PM PDT
by
burster
To: Paul Ross
the world is no match for the new Iranian TwinTail F-5... right??? please.
22
posted on
09/11/2006 6:08:27 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist ©®)
To: Crazieman
Methinks a couple flights of B-2's will take care of most problems there, then we can use whatever survives that for live-fire training for our new pilots.
23
posted on
09/11/2006 6:09:14 PM PDT
by
Old Student
(We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
To: Paloma_55
"Then, it would be MOABs and lots of them (if it goes MY way)"
Why? You mean you would have cargo aircraft... the MOAB delivery platform.. fly into a hostile environment of any kind? They would not even need to have their old F-14's get into the fight.
What is it with a MOAB? They are a VERY limited use weapons. Actually not very good at clearing anything but minimally reinforced bunkers (rarely) and trees and heavy brush. MOAB's barely caused any seismic disturbance when tested.
Why do you think we never use them? They do make a neat conventional fireball and a loud noise but that is it.
24
posted on
09/11/2006 7:16:16 PM PDT
by
JSteff
To: Paul Ross
Good Grief! What in the world has become of Aviation Week? What a joke of an article.
To: burster
We would most likely do like we did in GWI and establish a forward airbase somewhere in Iran to operate Apaches and A-10's from. This would split their defense and pull them away from strict border defense of air and ground space.
This would cause collapse of a large segment of their ground army. Only the religious factions would remain the others would start a rebellion.
26
posted on
09/11/2006 7:26:09 PM PDT
by
JSteff
To: Paul Ross
Realistically, this is all scrap metal.
But one item caught my eye. "This appears to use an AIM-9P airframe". Then they speculate on Chinese help. This shows why Israel needs to be about a thousand times more serious about technology transfer. In case everybody forgot, Israel foolishly transfered tech acquired from us, to China, as the highest bidder for it. Now China has used it to arm Israel's most dangerous enemy. So heat seeking missile tech designed in the US would be used against US and Israeli pilots, all because some fool in Israel thought it clever to get money standing between a generous US and a crooked China.
27
posted on
09/11/2006 7:35:42 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: JSteff
better git-r-done, before we have a real good reason to take Iran out, like retaliation after we lose a few cities.
To: Paul Ross
Iran held Saddam to a draw for eight years.
Period.
Kari quit working in five minutes. Tiger Song never answered the bell. I give Iran's air defense "network" all of six minutes to fold up like a derailed train.
BTW, Saddam's Guards were Republican.
Iran's Guards are Revolutionary.
Save trouble remembering by simply calling them Pasdaran. Not decades, not years, not weeks or days.
Soon.
29
posted on
09/11/2006 8:09:17 PM PDT
by
jeffers
To: Paul Ross
Good heavens, it's worse than I thought. The Iranian OOB includes
one squadron of MiG-29's and a bunch of scrap metal? That isn't a "bite", it's a nibble. If that. And that assumes they can find pilots who can survive for more than 10 minutes in a very hostile environment.
I might be concerned about missile corridors throwing enough iron in the air to accidentally impact something but not their fighter threat. "Third-world" would be putting it charitably.
To: Paloma_55
That's right, the best "air battle" is jockeying for position on the refueling tanker after taking them out on the ground. Not a fair fight, but when it's our guys' butts on the line, fair just doesn't come into it.
To: RaceBannon
I am trying to picture a Hawk mounted on a couple of hard points, and all I can think is, "NOT IF I AM FLYING IT."
32
posted on
09/11/2006 8:35:09 PM PDT
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: RaceBannon
I cannot help but wonder how many fully functional aircraft they really have. I bet it is a lot less then some writers would elude to.
I'll only say I worked on radar systems for F5/F4/F16 many years back as well as the fire control radar computers. There is no way those early configurations would operate at this point in time without a huge supply of replacement parts, and really excellant maintenance in general of the total airframe and all the electronic, hydrolics, and other systems onboard.
Some writers give to much credit in the Iranian's ability to maintain such aircraft.
Where does on find a thirty year old say op amp that has not been manufactured for say twenty years, that would be required to replace a part in the fire control radar, that no longer can compute a bogey's speed, and position.
These where very complicated systems. They needed constant maintenance, as well as quick turn around part replacement.
I highly doubt the Iranians have such a capability to keep all those old US and Russky aircraft fully functional.
Sure they may be able to take them off, but are their aviontic packages fully functional.
Same goes for the various AA missles mentioned. I think they have mostly a pile of junk in the reality of things.
33
posted on
09/11/2006 9:32:45 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: msnimje
"If true, that is very interesting especially since 25% of them were killed by a highly restrained IDF"
In conventional statistics citing a percentage attrition requires one know how many of the object there were in the begining and how many there were after. As far as I know none of these two requisited have been established even speculatively. This would tend to cast doubt on your assertion of 25%.
To: JasonC
Did that happen before, or after, they had the example of Clinton and the Loral deals?
35
posted on
09/12/2006 3:28:24 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
To: RaceBannon; patton
An air-mobile SAM? Those Iranians are sneaky!
36
posted on
09/12/2006 4:58:29 AM PDT
by
Coop
(FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
To: Yo-Yo; Paul Ross
Iran got about 20 each of Mirage F-1s & SU-24s,along with numerous older systems like the SU-20/22 from Iraqi pilots in '91.In about 2000,there were reports that France was offering Iran it's retired Mirage F-1s along with AAMs.The SU-24s & F-14s both have good range in an air to ground role.We can't ruleo out the possibility of Russia or China providing newer AAMs & smart bombs to Iran esp. when even Hezbollah could get something as good as a C-802.
To: FreedomPoster
Around the same time. All through the 90s they did deals with China on airborne early warning, radar and ECM, and air to air missiles. All angle heat seeking (these AIM-9s) was the most outrageous one. I believe there were also Awacs and helmet mounted sight stuff, as the level of advanced tech they were simply selling. Just incredibly dumb. Oh and by the way, in my book it eliminates the possibilty of Israelis ever seeing an F-22 outside of an air show. We'd be crazy to risk that, given their past behavior.
38
posted on
09/12/2006 5:22:31 AM PDT
by
JasonC
To: FreedomPoster
I joked at the time that it was the new triangle trade. The US gives advanced military technology and large dollar subsidies to Israel, receiving in return a warm sense of righteousness. Israel sells the advanced military technology to China for cash. China sells stuffed animals and sneakers to the US for cash. Everyone gets what they want - the US cute little bunnies, affordable sneakers, and a warm sense of righteousness; China and Israel, wealth and power.
39
posted on
09/12/2006 5:26:21 AM PDT
by
JasonC
To: tet68
"Quite frankly, it would be better for the US and Isreal to attack Iran now and then deal with these proxies as they expose themselves. "
I believe Michael Corleone once said, "today we settle old scores."
I would launch an all out attack on everything Al Queada/Hezbollah/Hamas/Abu Sayyif/Irans Nukes and air defenses and Syrias military
One massive strike. Then I would go to the UN and declare that all scores are settled. If there is another attack against Israel or US interests, everything relating to radical Islam wil be destroyed including Mecca.
Now encourage all Muslims not willing to conform to western civilization to go back to their own countries.
40
posted on
09/12/2006 5:50:08 AM PDT
by
EQAndyBuzz
("For seven million extra, we could have avoided a billion dollar WOT.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson