Iran locked and loaded

Akrasia

Moriarty wrote:

The Iranians are trying to provoke America into attacking them to provide justification for their continued development of nuclear weapons. They're lying to the international community, refusing to let the IAEA carry out their functions, supporting insurgent activity in Iraq and Lebanon with knowledge, intelligence and weapons and they've had high-level contacts with members of the largest party in the Iraqi parliament with a view to subverting US control and the will of the Iraqi people with a view to establishing a pan-middle-eastern theocracy bent on power. They even signed a secret deal with north korea to create a diversion half way around the world!!!!

http://www.fakelink.com/theorys/this-link-is-really-completely-irrelevant-to-my-point/

http://www.but-i-have.to/put-a-link-in-somewhere/to-pretend-to/back-up-my-points/when-i-know-people-wont-bother-clicking/on-them


</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

you're so clever aren't you. The one problem with your childish rebuttal is that little if any of what you said is true, while everything I said I can back up with evidence (that's what the links are for, they're not just there for decoration)

Akrasia

Sponge Bob wrote:

Thats exactly what I think they will do .No troops on the ground bar an incursion of some sort around the nuclear facilities maybe .

They essentially must attack Bushehr BEFORE it is fuelled, its near a large town.

that's all a lovely little plan. but it assumes that the Iranians will just let them have their little air war.

The world doesn't work that way.

Bush won't start off intending to invade but very soon they will be dragged into a full scale war. The only thing that would possibly prevent that would be if the Iranian government and people demonstrated unbelievable restraint, the kind of restraint that America would never ever show.

marco murphy

With Irans missiles pointed at Saudi oil fields and Israel I don't think any kind of warfare, air or otherwise is doable.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

Not sure where the over-reaction is coming from? You read the link? Iran is claiming the US is supporting terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of Iranians.

Based on recent events its quite obvious that the US are intentionally provoking Iran trying to get a response out of them.

I'd prefer that a link was posted so I could read where a person was coming from and then given a chance to research and verify/dismiss the link then making fun of them.

marco murphy

Moriarty wrote:

The Iranians are trying to provoke America into attacking them to provide justification for their continued development of nuclear weapons. They're lying to the international community, refusing to let the IAEA carry out their functions, supporting insurgent activity in Iraq and Lebanon with knowledge, intelligence and weapons and they've had high-level contacts with members of the largest party in the Iraqi parliament with a view to subverting US control and the will of the Iraqi people with a view to establishing a pan-middle-eastern theocracy bent on power. They even signed a secret deal with north korea to create a diversion half way around the world!!!!

http://www.fakelink.com/theorys/this-link-is-really-completely-irrelevant-to-my-point/

http://www.but-i-have.to/put-a-link-in-somewhere/to-pretend-to/back-up-my-points/when-i-know-people-wont-bother-clicking/on-them


</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

Have you been seduced by Bush's accusations?

As someone pointed out earlier, the US are probably trying to conjure a tonkin incident. There has been plenty of lies by the US, when it comes to making excuses to attack someone. What makes the recent accusations truthful?

Judt

You chaps seem to have misunderstood me. Who knows, maybe intentionally. If Iran is supplying and backing terrorists, such as Hezbollah and potentially those in Iraq as well, they'd have good fun firing rockets into the Green Zone and Israel if they weren't been shipped any replacements.

People like to cite the story of "The Boy Who Called Wolf" concerning America and Iraq. I would, however, point out that another moral in that story is that when the wolf did eventually come along, it made off with the village sheep.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

People like to cite the story of "The Boy Who Called Wolf" concerning America and Iraq. I would, however, point out that another moral in that story is that when the wolf did eventually come along, it made off with the village sheep.

Pity it left the Rats , eh!

Sand

As Trist has already noted the blatant leaking of the battle plan is a deliberate ploy to remind the Iranians of potential consequences if diplomacy doesnt work. The "or else" part of negotiation.

Hes right that its blatant, but at the same time it seems to have convinced half the posters here.

The US cannot realistically attack Iran, but it must successfully convince the Iranians that they are crazy enough to attack Iran if Iran breaks either of the red lines they helpfully leaked with the battleplan A) Dont get involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq, Do not develop or try to develop nuclear weapons.

IIRC the plan of ultimate evil, the PNAC was explicit in its determination that the world must be always convinced that the US is ready, willing and able to use its military anywhere in the world. No point having the best army in the world if no one thinks youll use it.

InFront

Sand wrote:

The US cannot realistically attack Iran, but it must successfully convince the Iranians that they are crazy enough to attack Iran if Iran breaks either of the red lines they helpfully leaked with the battleplan A) Dont get involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq, Do not develop or try to develop nuclear weapons.

Then surely you must be of the opinion that the US worry is genuine, and that they have basis for concern, despite what the other reported intelligence suggests?

I agree with you that they don't want to at this moment, but I would like to hold you to that "US cannot realistically attack" statement. We're not talking about an invasion, but an attack.

Manic Moran

InFront wrote:

I agree with you that they don't want to at this moment, but I would like to hold you to that "US cannot realistically attack" statement. We're not talking about an invasion, but an attack.

It's effectively a Mexican Standoff. Iran is relying on the fact that it believes that the US is too pre-occupied or lacks the political will to attack it, whilst I doubt that the US really can't do it, but it is worried that a simple air attack or raid will open up a massive can of worms to include ground operations in Iraq. Someone's bluff is going to get called.

NTM

InFront

I'm not sure that either side are bluffing at all, though both may think that about the other. I'm sceptical that either the American's or Iranians will back down.

Nuclear energy is the national passion in Iran, young people talk about it in the streets, I don't think they're taking 'no' for an answer. They have that right. Do you think America will take no for an answer?

A US attack on Iran is not written in stone, I'm just saying that the suggestion the US cannot realistically attack is flawed. Can you see a peaceful climbdown happening -
The US Army hopping back aboard the aircraft carriers, waving goodbye and going home?
Or Ahmadinejad telling his people he's going to deny them nuclear energy because he's afraid of America?

marco murphy

Some more Blah dee Blah

U.S. Navy buildup came after Iran moves



By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

MANAMA, Bahrain -
Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top
U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said.


The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to a recent build-up of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with The Associated Press and other reporters.

During maneuvers, Iranian sailors have loaded mines onto small minelaying boats and test-fired a Shahab-3 ballistic missile into international waters, he said.

"The Shahab-3 most recently went into waters very close to the traffic separation scheme in the straits themselves. This gives us concern because innocent passage of vessels now is threatened," Walsh said in the interview Monday on the base of the Navy's Fifth Fleet in the Gulf island kingdom of Bahrain.

Iran tested the Shahab during November maneuvers, which it said were in response to U.S. maneuvers in the Gulf it called "adventurist." Iran also showed off an array of new torpedoes in war games in April.

The carrier USS John C. Stennis — backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships — arrived in the region Monday. It joined the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after
President Bush ordered the build-up as a show of strength to Iran.

The additional U.S. firepower has ratcheted up tensions with Iran. But Walsh said the increase aims to reassure Arab allies in the Gulf and prevent misunderstandings that could escalate into outright conflict.

"That's certainly what we're trying to avoid, a mistake that then boils over into a war," said Walsh, who departs his command of the Fifth Fleet this month to become vice chief of naval operations at the
Pentagon, the Navy's No. 2 post.

Walsh said the Navy was responding to "more instability than we've seen in years" in the Fifth Fleet's region — with conflicts in
Iraq,
Afghanistan and Somalia, tensions in Lebanon and the standoff with Iran.

The Navy has grown increasingly alarmed at what Walsh called Iran's "provocations." Once cordial Navy ship-to-ship relations with Iran in the Gulf have disintegrated over the past 18 months as Iranian vessels made "probing" incursions into Iraqi waters, he said.

"They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Walsh said. "And so it is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."

Since the Stennis was ordered to the region, Iranian leaders have increasingly warned that they would respond to any attack by closing off oil shipping lanes or attacking U.S. interests.

The Straits of Hormuz are 34 miles across, but its shipping lanes are only about six miles wide.

Walsh said it was doubtful that Iran could physically block the entire six-mile lanes with mines — but hitting only a few vessels with missiles and mines would "terrorize" shipping and have the same effect.

"It's more the threat of mines than the threat of closing the straits. That would have dramatic effects on markets around the world," he said.

Walsh said his biggest worry was that Iran would underestimate U.S. resolve to protect its interests in the world's richest oil region. He said the tone of Iranian leaders could make their commanders on the ground more reckless. "It's a mix and a formulation where you can have misunderstanding," he said.

Asked whether the U.S. Navy would launch an attack on Iran if Iranian involvement were confirmed in a deadly incident in Iraq, Walsh said he was unable to discuss the Navy's rules of engagement. But he added, "There are events on land that can spill over onto the sea."

At the same time, Walsh said he understood that U.S.-allied Gulf nations feared that any U.S.-Iranian military conflict could bring attacks on their soil.

Walsh said he was aware that a University of Maryland/Zogby International poll of Arab public opinion this month showed residents of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other allies believe Iran is far less a threat than the U.S. and
Israel.

"I'm trying to talk to those in the region, to give them assurances that the reason we're here is to stand by them," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gulf_us_iran

philologos

Judt wrote:

And if they are then one would be justified in attacking...

No they wouldn't the USA should have no say considering they have a considerable stocks of nuclear weapons themselves. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is incredibly biased also. 6 countries allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's not fair pure and simple. Israel, Pakistan and India have also violated it and yet nobody is willing to do anything about it. To think this crap was proposed by Ireland, is worrying indeed.

All this fuss over Iran wanting to make nuclear power is rediculous imo.

Victor

bk wrote:

It depends, a full scale war, you are right, US public does not want another Iraq, on the other hand they might not be against an air war. The US could use their Air Force and Navy (Stealth Bombers, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and UCAV's) to knock out the Iranian Nuclear Reactor and other Nuclear facilities, Air Fields, Naval Bases, Fighters (in particular any F15's they have left), Air Defence systems, Command and Control, etc. This would take about a week, wouldn't cost many American lives and would have the effect of pretty much completely wiping out the Iranian military infrastructure, thus greatly weakening them.

I would lol at this if it wasn't so serious. If Yugoslavia and Iraq were able to put up a fight after years of sanctions, why do you think Iran would just roll over afer years of preparations?

Yes, the Americans could use "thousand bomber raids", but it still wouldn't be over for a long time and they would have immediately lost public opinion.

The Navy has grown increasingly alarmed at what Walsh called Iran's "provocations." Once cordial Navy ship-to-ship relations with Iran in the Gulf have disintegrated over the past 18 months as Iranian vessels made "probing" incursions into Iraqi waters, he said.

Of course the Royal Navy say relations are perfectly normal with the Iranian Navy.

"They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Walsh said. "And so it is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."

And the Americans threaten to use bombs as weapons.

And all because of the Embassy kidnappings.

Akrasia

above article wrote:

Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top
U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said.


The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to a recent build-up of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with The Associated Press and other reporters.

what the feck? they were worried about an accidental encounter with the iranians that escalate into war, so they move in two carrier fleets into the gulf just to make it more likely?

"They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Walsh said. "And so it is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."

For gods sake, these are not aggressive threats, they are purely defensive in nature. Shipping is perfectly safe unless the U.S. attacks and then they're going to cut off supplies to the enemey, a defensive act which they are perfectly entitled to do.

This kind of shoddy propaganda really makes my blood boil, they could at least make an effort

bk

Victor wrote:

I would lol at this if it wasn't so serious. If Yugoslavia and Iraq were able to put up a fight after years of sanctions, why do you think Iran would just roll over afer years of preparations?

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces. The best example is Iraq which had a military force roughly equivalent to Iran.

Do you not remember the first Gulf war when the US pretty much wiped out the entire Iraqi Air Force and Air Defence facalities and command and control in less then a week?

And then spent the next few weeks destroying every Iraqi tank and truck that moved on the ground?

Why would Iran be any different?

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

Just one US carrier puts more modern fighters in the area (brand new modern 4.5 Generation F18 Super Hornets) then the entire Iranian Air Force. Never mind all the rest of the US forces already in the region.

Look, I know many people are completely against the US going to war, that is completely understandable. But don't doubt for a minute that if they did, that it would be anything but a very quick total victory *.

* Of course I'm talking about an air war here. The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

The US would also relatively easily win a ground war if they had to (just look at both Gulf wars and the "Thunder Runs"), but they certainly wouldn't want to get bogged down in a long occupation and all the resultant insurgency fighting.

Manic Moran

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces.

After the Kosovo campaign was over, the Serbians took home pretty much all the ground forces they put into the country. Infrastructure took a serious hammering, bridges and whatnot, but in terms of things that could hide, or have fake decoys made, NATO Air was pretty pathetic.

most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world)

Picky mode: No other Air Force in the world ever used them in the first place.

The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

You will note that during the Kosovo operation, NATO never claimed air superiority at levels below 10,000 feet. It was just too dangerous to fly. Part of the reason why the Serbian ground forces had such a great survival rate. To that end, Serbian air defense actually worked.

I'm not saying that Iran would win a protracted conflict, just that the end result wouldn't be as cut and dried, mainly because I don't think it would be confined to the air war, regardless of US intent.

NTM

marco murphy

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

The Iranians are using reverse technology on a lot of US stuff, building their own variants. Not to be underestimate, plus the fact that no one REALLY knows what they have, air wise.

bk

Manic Moran wrote:

You will note that during the Kosovo operation, NATO never claimed air superiority at levels below 10,000 feet. It was just too dangerous to fly. Part of the reason why the Serbian ground forces had such a great survival rate. To that end, Serbian air defense actually worked.

I'm not saying that Iran would win a protracted conflict, just that the end result wouldn't be as cut and dried, mainly because I don't think it would be confined to the air war, regardless of US intent.

Yes, that is a very good point, SAMs will always pose a great danger to any Air Force, that is why the US is putting so much effort into stealth and UCAV's.

The US has been losing lots of helicopters in Iraq recently to AA traps with multiple heavy machine guns and shoulder launched SAM's. But operating over 10,000 feet should be fine just to knock the Iranian high value targets out.

It is also interesting to note, that AA defences on their own have never won any war for the defenders. Think of any war where AA was heavily used, Gulf War 1 and 2, Kosovo, Israel versus Egypt, Israel versus Syria. The AA defences usually knock a few jets out and slow down the war slightly, but they have never decisively turned a war, usually the military with air superiority still wins.

Victor

bk wrote:

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces.

In 1998 in Kosovo, they only impaired the Yugoslav forces (and having been under embargo since 1992-3?), they did not destroy them. Four years after the 2003 invasion (and having been under embargo since 1990), the Iraqis are still resisting the Americans.

The best example is Iraq which had a military force roughly equivalent to Iran.

No. Iraq had sod all spares and maintenance in 1990-2003. Iran had all it wanted, although it had to get the likes of F-4 parts from Germany, not the USA. Iran makes its own helicopters - Iraq doesn't.

Do you not remember the first Gulf war when the US pretty much wiped out the entire Iraqi Air Force and Air Defence facalities and command and control in less then a week?

No, which game was that? If they were wiped out, how come the Iraqis were still firing SAMs at them in 2003. How did more than 100 aircraft escape to Iran in 1991?

And then spent the next few weeks destroying every Iraqi tank and truck that moved on the ground?

The trick was to not move. Iraq still had plenty of tanks and trucks.

Why would Iran be any different?

Because Iran is largely mountainous, can see the Americans coming and are prepared, aren't demoralised or split like the Iraqis.

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

Yes I have a fair idea. Not that many people have the exact figures. But also look at the coastal artillery. Can you afford oil at $200/barrel?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
http://www.softwar.net/rfed.html
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-ship_missiles_of_Iran

Look, I know many people are completely against the US going to war, that is completely understandable. But don't doubt for a minute that if they did, that it would be anything but a very quick total victory *.* Of course I'm talking about an air war here. The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

For what losses?

The US would also relatively easily win a ground war if they had to (just look at both Gulf wars and the "Thunder Runs"), but they certainly wouldn't want to get bogged down in a long occupation and all the resultant insurgency fighting.

Try a thunder run through the mountains. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to say who will or won't win, but both sides can lose.

Victor

bk wrote:

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces.

In 1998 in Kosovo, they only impaired the Yugoslav forces (and having been under embargo since 1992-3?), they did not destroy them. Four years after the 2003 invasion (and having been under embargo since 1990), the Iraqis are still resisting the Americans.

The best example is Iraq which had a military force roughly equivalent to Iran.

No. Iraq had sod all spares and maintenance in 1990-2003. Iran had all it wanted, although it had to get the likes of F-4 parts from Germany, not the USA. Iran makes its own helicopters - Iraq doesn't.

Do you not remember the first Gulf war when the US pretty much wiped out the entire Iraqi Air Force and Air Defence facalities and command and control in less then a week?

No, which game was that? If they were wiped out, how come the Iraqis were still firing SAMs at them in 2003. How did more than 100 aircraft escape to Iran in 1991?

And then spent the next few weeks destroying every Iraqi tank and truck that moved on the ground?

The trick was to not move. Iraq still had plenty of tanks and trucks.

Why would Iran be any different?

Because Iran is largely mountainous, can see the Americans coming and are prepared, aren't demoralised or split like the Iraqis.

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

Yes I have a fair idea. Not that many people have the exact figures. But also look at the coastal artillery. Can you afford oil at $200/barrel?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
http://www.softwar.net/rfed.html
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-ship_missiles_of_Iran

Look, I know many people are completely against the US going to war, that is completely understandable. But don't doubt for a minute that if they did, that it would be anything but a very quick total victory *.* Of course I'm talking about an air war here. The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

For what losses?

The US would also relatively easily win a ground war if they had to (just look at both Gulf wars and the "Thunder Runs"), but they certainly wouldn't want to get bogged down in a long occupation and all the resultant insurgency fighting.

Try a thunder run through the mountains. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to say who will or won't win, but both sides can lose.

bk

Poblachtach wrote:

The Iranians are using reverse technology on a lot of US stuff, building their own variants. Not to be underestimate, plus the fact that no one REALLY knows what they have, air wise.

Ah common, stop with the fantasy stuff. Reverse engineering is much easier said then done. For the last 10 years china has been trying to reverse engineer Russian jet engines with little success and China has an economy and education system far better geared towards this then Iran.

Iran has been desperately trying to get parts for their ageing F14's, never mind build new ones.

Also wars rarely come down to just a few pieces of reverse engineered weapons, it also has a lot to do with training, experience, logistics, integration (AWACS, etc.), sheer numbers. The US has all these in spades.

I know a lot of people out there are desperate to see the US beaten in a war, but Iran just isn't going to be it.

bk

Victor wrote:

In 1998 in Kosovo, they only impaired the Yugoslav forces (and having been under embargo since 1992-3?), they did not destroy them.

True, but then that wasn't the goal, the goal was to force them out of Kosovo with the least amount of force.

The bombings were very curtailed and far smaller then the Gulf wars, each target had to be approved by all nineteen members states!!! And there was a lot of political interference.

In the end they still achieved their goal in just 10 weeks.

Victor wrote:

No. Iraq had sod all spares and maintenance in 1990-2003. Iran had all it wanted, although it had to get the likes of F-4 parts from Germany, not the USA. Iran makes its own helicopters - Iraq doesn't.

Not really the US put a weapons embargo on Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution which has stopped them from getting modern weapons for the last 25 years. This forced them to build up their own military industry, but it isn't ever going to be as effective as western weapons.

It has been estimated that Irans 2005 military budget was only $6.3 billion, this is the second lowest in the middle east and 200 times less then Israel (as an example).

Victor wrote:

No, which game was that? If they were wiped out, how come the Iraqis were still firing SAMs at them in 2003. How did more than 100 aircraft escape to Iran in 1991?

Sure the 100 planes escaped right at the start of the war as the US didn't expect it. Once they realised what happened they setup patrols between Iraq and Iran and no more planes escaped with many shot down.

Victor wrote:

The trick was to not move. Iraq still had plenty of tanks and trucks.

Don't you remember the footage of massive bombed out and destroyed convoys all along Iraqi roads.
And how long did the non moving ones last once the ground forces went in?

Victor wrote:

Because Iran is largely mountainous, can see the Americans coming and are prepared, aren't demoralised or split like the Iraqis.

It is funny, I remember having the exact same conversations before the last two Gulf wars and look how quickly they ended. Yes they've gotten bogged down in a silly occupation since, but the actual main battle actions were over very quickly and were decisive victories for the US. Iran wouldn't be any different, however any occupation also wouldn't be any different to Iraq (bloody and messy).

Manic Moran

bk wrote:

Think of any war where AA was heavily used, Israel versus Egypt,

Given the pre-war Egyptian goals of 1973, AA would have been one of the three war-winners, together with ATGMs and water cannon. The only reason that the Israelis were finally able to beat Egypt was the fact that, contrary to military advice, the Egyptians made a political decision to leave their air umbrella. Had that not happened, it's quite likely that Egypt would have ended the 1973 war in full control of the Canal.

Ah common, stop with the fantasy stuff. Reverse engineering is much easier said then done. For the last 10 years china has been trying to reverse engineer Russian jet engines with little success and China has an economy and education system far better geared towards this then Iran.

Iran has been desperately trying to get parts for their ageing F14's, never mind build new ones/

In fairness to the Iranians, that's exactly what they've done. Not too many years ago, estimates of air-worthy F-14s were down to about two dozen, maybe less. They're supposedly back up now to the good side of 40. They've had nearly thirty years to play with them, they've had plenty of time. They may not be able to open their own F-14 production line, but the commonly failing parts are being built.

NTM

Judt

All this fuss over Iran wanting to make nuclear power is rediculous imo.

Yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran should have nuclear power, leading to nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong? As we've seen, Islamic fundamentalists are a great peace loving lot who simply want to live out to their old age and never harm a fly.

And here we go with the postulating war game... The US Air Force, in all of its guises, has no equal in the world, period. The same arguments you lot are bandying about now were used in 1990 when Iraq had one of the worlds largest militaries. The same was said even in 2003... "Baghdadograd" and suchlike. Basing your assumption of military supremacy on whether or not you like a country and want it to win is a tad stupid. Sadly too many staff officers have made the same mistake. Notably in France. But anyhoo.

A major air war with Iran would go as follows: The US would use its bombers to first punch bloody great holes in the Iranian air defence system. Then they would crater every airfield in the land and blow up whatever wants to fly. Their dogfighting aircraft can blow the Iranian planes that get up into the air before the Iranians can even see them on their radar.

Thereafter the bombers would proceed to take apart infrastructure and military units. The Iranians could do as the Serbs and make a lot of wooden tanks for them to bomb, but again the US military isn't in the habit of running out.

If the Iranians were to launch a ground offensive into Iraq, an extremely flat desert country by air standards... well, has anyone seen what a flight of three B-52's can do to a force in the open? Yes the US would incur more casualties than usual for the week or so it would take to send the Iranians packing, but essentially the US could kick the crap out of Iran without ever having to put a boot on the ground in that country.

All this "modified aircraft" and such talk is pie in the sky. At the end of the day the US air force has proven its position as the worlds premier tin opener.

bk

Manic Moran wrote:

Given the pre-war Egyptian goals of 1973, AA would have been one of the three war-winners, together with ATGMs and water cannon. The only reason that the Israelis were finally able to beat Egypt was the fact that, contrary to military advice, the Egyptians made a political decision to leave their air umbrella. Had that not happened, it's quite likely that Egypt would have ended the 1973 war in full control of the Canal.

That isn't the whole story. Yes they did leave the SAM umbrella, but they actually got driven back by Israeli Armour, not air power. But the point was if the Egyptians were ever going to advance, they were always going to have to leave the SAM umbrella. They didn't actually lose all their forces in this engagement, they still had very large numbers of tanks, SAMs and ATGM's back at their defensive positions. It wasn't the turning point.

The turning point was when the Israelis completely changed their tactics and sent in their infantry with no Tank support. Their infantry quickly over ran the Egyptian SAM and ATGM defensive positions, disabling them and allowing the Israeli tanks and airforce to come back into play.

There were a couple of important points to take from this engagement. Firstly these are pretty much defensive weapons, they aren't much good if you want to actually attack and take territory.

Second, these sort of weapons are often used by lazy, ill equipped and ill trained armies. These weapons can be used very effectively to defend territory and blunt a superior forces attacks. However if that is all you got, if you forces are otherwise badly trained and equipped, the superior force with better training and equipment will quickly adapt and over come your defences.

Manic Moran wrote:

In fairness to the Iranians, that's exactly what they've done. Not too many years ago, estimates of air-worthy F-14s were down to about two dozen, maybe less. They're supposedly back up now to the good side of 40. They've had nearly thirty years to play with them, they've had plenty of time. They may not be able to open their own F-14 production line, but the commonly failing parts are being built.

Yes, it was supposedly down to 10 at one stage. But you and I both know that even 40 aren't going to last long against F15's and F18 Super Hornets.

During the Gulf war the Iraqi's were equipped with Mig29's which many argue in one on one engagements, a Mig29 is superior to a US F14 and F15. Yet during the Gulf war 5 Mig29's were shot down with no US loses.

In the end the US had superior training, better integration with AWACs, etc. and better maintained. That makes all the difference and it wouldn't be any different in Iran.

purple'n'gold

There is no question about the outcome of a war between the USA and Iran. US air power would win hands down, no problem. But, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and the USA would be leaving themselves wide open to violent terrorist attacks well into the future. Its bad enough now, but to really piss the Islamic world off by attacking Iran would be one big mistake.

Clearly it's their concern for Co2 emmissions and global warming that has them wanting nuclear power.
They are going to plug all those oil wells.
Forget Australia and their banning of ordinary bulbs in favour of flouressant ones..
Iran is way ahead of the game here.

Everybody has got it so wrong.

InFront

Judt wrote:

Yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran should have nuclear power, leading to nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

That's a pretty big assumption you mumble in there, "nuclear power leading to nuclear weapons", as if it's just going to happen automatically. It's the kind of hysteria that the redtops and American news networks feast on. Nuclear power does not equal nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure if I'd want Ahmadinejad in particular to have nuclear weapons; maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly not comfortable with Pakistan and India and Israel and the USA in particular having them, I don't see why additional worry more than usual should be attached to Iran.
Iran has never nuked innocent civilians.

If the Iranians were to launch a ground offensive into Iraq, an extremely flat desert country by air standards... well, has anyone seen what a flight of three B-52's can do to a force in the open?

No, but wars can shift, and the Americans would face a threat in their own territory, would they not.

InFront

Just in regards to the energy cynicism, yeh Iran is rich in oil and gas, but these fuels are finite and, given the pace of Iran's economic development, they will be depleted within two to five decades. Iran just does not want to get nuclear power - it needs it if it is to make an economic success of itself. Of course, making an economic success of itself is itself a threat to some, they don't like the idea of a strong Iran.