I assure you that if we decided to invade them, a handful of SA-20s wouldn't stop us. It's an incredibly badass SAM, but there are plenty of better reasons to avoid kinetic diplomacy with them...and if things get dire enough that we do take that route, again, it wouldn't stop us.

Quote :

"Yes, it is news--context is everything. When considered in the context of Iran's growing nuclear threat and the new missiles they have supposedly obtained, the story of a "strike plan" takes on new relevance. "

The only thing that's news about it at all is that it's saber-rattling from us...and is that really news? I think it's been made pretty clear many times over that we have all options on the table with Iran.

8/10/2010 10:15:59 AM

Duke, do you know what the state of Iran's Air Force is?

8/10/2010 10:24:50 AM

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

8/10/2010 11:14:16 AM

^ ty kind sir

8/10/2010 11:19:20 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory
The link above the list gives a more detailed breakdown.

8/10/2010 11:59:36 AM

They also have stealth jet fighters.

8/10/2010 4:13:53 PM

^x6 I shouldn't have to post this again, but I will.

Quote :

"Yes, it is news--context is everything."

8/10/2010 6:08:08 PM

Quote :

"Duke, do you know what the state of Iran's Air Force is?"

yes, I've studied their aircraft, their training, their command/control/communications, their doctrine, their RADARs, their SAM systems, etc...but I can't talk about any of it in here.

Quote :

"They also have stealth jet fighters."

is that a joke that I don't get? you cannot be serious.

8/10/2010 11:22:30 PM

Iran lacks trained pilots to fly any of its aircrafts and it also lacks the ability to replace parts. It's an Air Force in name only.

8/10/2010 11:25:15 PM

i find that hard to believe. if they have operable aircraft, they certainly have pilots to fly them. Iran may be dumb, but they're not stupid.

8/11/2010 2:38:54 AM

Um. . .Iran just held air drills, among other military exercises, not more than a few months ago.



http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/22/iran.exercises/index.html

And I think they completed other air exercises just last week.

But, from the Council on Foreign Relations. . .

Quote :

"Another focus of recent sanctions has been the Iranian military--including businesses owned by the Revolutionary Guards Corps. Have these sanctions hit their targets? There's no doubt that the sanctions are having a tremendous effect on Iran's military. They have not been able to, for over thirty years, import the most sophisticated equipment. Without a doubt, American aircraft--[which] Israel can import, Saudi Arabia can import, South Korea can import--are the most sophisticated. Iran basically has some leftover American airplanes, some Tomcats which are very modern, but they don't have the various things you need for the Tomcat to make it an effective airplane. They have old Phantom jets, about forty-year-old jets. So Iran's air force is not in any way, shape, or form modern. What Iran has done is develop a reasonable indigenous military equipment production capacity. It's been forced to do that, but these are not the most sophisticated things. Iran has bought some diesel submarines, but these are not the most sophisticated."

http://tinyurl.com/2762nxz

Why are we focusing so much on Iran's air force here?

8/11/2010 3:30:17 AM

Quote :

"Why are we focusing so much on Iran's air force here?"

i asked because of Mambatroll's statements. it got me thinking about Desert Storm back in the 90's when we went into Iraq and had to deal somewhat with the Iraqi Air Force and then this time around in 2003 where the Iraqi Air Force was completely absent, at least from news reports it seemed so. along that track, i was thinking about what kind of response Iran would put into the air if NATO/Israel/US/whoever would mount an aerial attack taking out targets.

8/11/2010 7:55:12 AM

Quote :

"Why are we focusing so much on Iran's air force here?"

Because I asked them to bomb the fuck out of your house

8/11/2010 9:42:54 AM

Quote :

"i asked because of Mambatroll's statements. it got me thinking about Desert Storm back in the 90's when we went into Iraq and had to deal somewhat with the Iraqi Air Force and then this time around in 2003 where the Iraqi Air Force was completely absent, at least from news reports it seemed so. along that track, i was thinking about what kind of response Iran would put into the air if NATO/Israel/US/whoever would mount an aerial attack taking out targets."

If I remember correctly, during Desert Storm we royally fucked up the Iraqi Air Force and most of them bugged out to Iran to land/crash and rust away.

8/11/2010 9:54:57 AM

Take a long hard look at that photo again and ask why planes that are at different angles from each other in relation to the camera all appear to be shot from the same angle.

Quote :

"i find that hard to believe. if they have operable aircraft, they certainly have pilots to fly them. Iran may be dumb, but they're not stupid."

Due to the sanctions regime currently against Iran it largely lacks operable aircraft. It can barely produce parts necessary for operating civilian commercial jetliners.

Being also that it is Iran, when the Shah was deposed, the Revolutionary Council purged the air force of all but two Tomcat trained pilots.

8/11/2010 9:58:53 AM

Iran has never photoshopped military displays before. I can't believe that's a fake.

8/11/2010 10:22:26 AM

Quote :

"TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's Air Force chief announced that the Islamic Republic has successfully launched the production line of radar-evading "stealth" fighter jets. Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani was quoted by press tv as saying Tuesday that the new jets would significantly enhance the Air Force's combat and defensive capabilities. Iran has recently started manufacturing superior "Quick Reaction" tanks to increase its defense self-sufficiency. Iran has also developed an electro-optical surveillance system that acts as a viable alternative when radars fail to cover a particular range. "We have upgraded our air force fleet, radar-systems, and missile systems over the past few years and we are now ready to counter any threat," Brig. Gen. Mighani continued. He added that the Iranian Air Force would prove its dominance by immediately crushing anyone who dares to try and penetrate Iran's airspace. Washington and Tel Aviv accuse Tehran of pursuing a military nuclear program and threaten Iran with the use of military force if the Islamic Republic continues with its nuclear enrichment program. Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and is in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The most recent UN nuclear watchdog report concluded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries. Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's illegitimate calls to give up its right of enrichment. Tehran has dismisses West's demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians' national resolve to continue the path. Meantime, the commander said that the Air Force plans to hold a large-scale exercise to strengthen deterrence against any threats. Mighani said that the combat and defensive drills will be held in the near future. Iran last week tested missiles in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, including one which could reach Israel and US bases in the Middle East. Israel, long assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from making progress in the field of nuclear technology. The Iranian war games and missile tests are viewed as a strong response to heightened threats by the Zionist regime and the United States. Speculation that Israel could bomb Iran has mounted since a big Israeli air drill last month. In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations. Iran has responded by saying it will strike back at Tel Aviv, as well as US interests and shipping, if it is hit. Some US facilities across the Persian Gulf are little more than 200 km (124 miles) from Iran's coast, with air and naval bases in nearby Arab states such as Qatar and Bahrain."

8/11/2010 11:34:23 AM

source?

also, Iran has never lied about weapons/capabilities before.

8/11/2010 12:24:17 PM

^^

Quote :

"Iran's "Stealth" Fighter: Real or Make Believe? BY Bill Roggio February 5, 2008 11:28 AM Iran is back at making fantastic claims about its domestically built weapons. The latest announcement, via the Iranian regime-run Tehran Times, touts the beginning of the manufacture process of a newly developed "stealth" fighter--locally made, of course: Air Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said here on Monday that Iran has launched the project to manufacture stealth aircrafts. "We have finished the design of stealth aircraft which cannot to be detected even by advanced radar systems, and the primary stages of its manufacture have started," Miqani told reporters in a news conference. The "stealth" program cannot be verified, but the regime has a long history of making outrageous claims about the capabilities of the domestic defense industry. The Islamic Republic's Air Force touted the Lightning, or Azarakhsh, as a fighter comparable to the U.S. F-18 in August 2006. In reality the plane is a refurbish/reengineered version of the 40-year-old U.S. F-5 export fighter. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps touted a home-made "supersonic torpedo" with a top speed of 233 miles per hour in April 2006. "Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," said General Ali Fadavi, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard. The reality is this was a remanufacture of the Soviet-era VA-111 Shkval torpedo. During the same timeframe, Iran claimed it developed stealthy ballistic missiles capable of deploying multiple warheads. This "advanced" missile appears to be the Soviet SS-26 theater ballistic missile. In perhaps the most humorous example of Iranian-made "stealth" technology, in April 2006 the military touted its stealthy "super-modern flying boat" (which looks anything but). "Due to its advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can detect it. It can lift out of the water," Iranian state television reported. The flying boat, called the Great Prophet, was "all Iranian-made and can launch missiles with precise targeting while moving." This boat is so "super-stealthy" it hasn't been seen deployed in the Persian Gulf since the announcement. For more, check out this classic: "Iran's Super Missile Will Defeat Great Satan, Steal Your Girlfriend.""

btw, Mambatroll's article is from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9605

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2010 12:52:54 PM

If Iran has a legitimate stealth aircraft program then I am the Pope.

8/11/2010 1:15:14 PM

Quote :

"i find that hard to believe. if they have operable aircraft, they certainly have pilots to fly them."

I'm not commenting on Iran, but generally speaking, it is not uncommon for countries to possess modern (at least 4th-gen) fighters, but have pilots with only rudimentary training--very few flight hours per year, and no knowledge whatsoever of modern fighter tactics (nor the proficiency to execute these more difficult, complex tactics if they were aware of them, due to the fact that they simply don't fly enough)...not to mention that these countries don't always have the latest missiles, etc.

Just because a country has a few fighters like, say, MiG-29, doesn't mean that their air force wouldn't get annihilated by us in short order.

Quote :

"If I remember correctly, during Desert Storm we royally fucked up the Iraqi Air Force and most of them bugged out to Iran to land/crash and rust away."

Oddly enough, Iraq worked a deal with its historic enemy, Iran, to fly most of its aircraft to Iran for safekeeping until the end of the war. In a move that surprised no one except for apparently Iraq, the Iranians just kept the jets when DESERT STORM was over, haha...and yes, the aircraft that stayed in Iraq were destroyed in short order. They made a couple of kills, but largely just got rapidly shot up.

Quote :

"Iran has never photoshopped military displays before. I can't believe that's a fake."

Who cares if it's real? Like we give a shit if they have a few Phantoms flying around. Phantoms armed with Sparrow/older Sidewinders wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell against modern American fighters, mostly with AESA RADARs, packing AMRAAM and AIM-9X, even if the Phantoms were flown by American pilots.

You realize that we use Phantoms for target practice and missile tests because they were obsolete 25-30 years ago, right?

Quote :

"If Iran has a legitimate stealth aircraft program then I am the Pope."

haha, yeah, there is no fucking way that Iran has anything that could even marginally be considered a "stealth" aircraft. In contrast, besides true "stealth" platforms, the West has started to significantly reduce the RADAR signature of other aircraft, such as the F-18E/F/G, Eurofighter Typhoon, and even B-1B.

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 2:00 PM. Reason : let's not forget our "undeclared" capabilities, either. ]

8/11/2010 1:31:13 PM

^correct. but it would certainly buy them enough time to launch an assault of their own.

8/11/2010 1:38:04 PM

And luckily they have a salvo of missiles at the ready.

8/11/2010 1:43:11 PM

^^ hahaha

8/11/2010 2:01:42 PM

disclaimer: i have not kept up with this thread.

all this planes and missiles talk is to keep rogue air strikes from occurring, which is fine. i would be more attentive to how quickly our Navy can secure the Straits of Hormuz. with the way this recession is going, we cannot afford crude to retest the $140-150/barrel price any time soon.

8/11/2010 2:06:00 PM

yep.

from a reply I sent to a PM I received on the subject:


i wish SO hard i could post the SECRET and especially TOP SECRET stuff I know. We would utterly face-rape any other country in the world. Nation-building and defending ourselves against every conceivable type of asymmetric attack are two things we can't do with completely consistent success (or if we could, the costs--financial and otherwise--would be prohibitive)...but we would demolish Iran like you fucking read about.

SA-20 is a strong contender for "best operational SAM in the world", but it wouldn't change the outcome. The problems with attacking Iran's nuclear facilities are the Straits of Hormuz, Hezbollah, Iraq, and Afghanistan...not a few SAMs that would be turned into smoking holes in short order if they dared to turn them on.

8/11/2010 2:39:31 PM

Quote :

"all this planes and missiles talk is to keep rogue air strikes from occurring, which is fine. i would be more attentive to how quickly our Navy can secure the Straits of Hormuz. with the way this recession is going, we cannot afford crude to retest the $140-150/barrel price any time soon."

this.

also, this is where the new Chinese missile could come into play.

8/11/2010 2:41:58 PM

Yeah but Chinese missiles are made in China. They're covered in lead and have a failure rate of about 127%. They make half a million babies sick a year over there.

8/11/2010 3:47:28 PM

Keep in mind that all this ass-kicking we're talking about requires political leadership that, if necessary, would launch a preemptive--or perhaps even a retaliatory--attack. I see no indication that we have such leadership at this time.

8/11/2010 4:14:59 PM

you honestly believe the Obama Administration wouldn't launch a retaliatory strike?

You are a hack.

8/11/2010 4:31:57 PM

^ Please stop name-calling--we're trying not to do that anymore. I'm doing my part to help elevate the tone here--why don't you get with the program?

The scenario I posted is not out of the realm of possibility. Obama has already limited retaliation in certain circumstances:

Obama poised to limit U.S. use of nuclear arms
Apr 6, 2010

Quote :

"Under the new strategy, the United States would commit for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if it is attacked with biological or chemical weapons, according to The New York Times and a U.S. official who confirmed the details. Those threats, Obama said, could be deterred with 'a series of graded options' -- a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons. Obama insisted 'outliers like Iran and North Korea' that have violated or renounced the treaty would not be protected."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63428F20100406

Even though Iran is considered an "outlier," a conventional response might not always be expedient or politically possible for a given situation with any country.

8/11/2010 4:47:50 PM

So you are redefining what retaliatory means now?

Anything to fit your hackish bias.

8/11/2010 5:04:42 PM

^ I'm not going to go 'round and 'round with you.

Quote :

"Obama has already limited retaliation in certain circumstances. . . ."

This is a fact.

8/11/2010 5:09:45 PM

Of course we won't use nukes. Are you fucking out of your mind?

8/11/2010 5:25:42 PM

^ No, apparently Obama is--he kept nukes on the table for Iran and other "outliers."

Quote :

"Obama insisted 'outliers like Iran and North Korea' that have violated or renounced the treaty would not be protected."

8/11/2010 5:30:34 PM

^ what's so bad about that approach? Don't answer that...I know what your reasoning is...the point is that it's a carrot and stick approach. It offers players like Iran and DPRK incentive to back off of the push for nukes. The benefits far outweigh the risks of having such a policy.

Obama is not as soft on foreign policy as you and others would like to believe.

8/11/2010 5:49:48 PM

Quote :

"Take a long hard look at that photo again and ask why planes that are at different angles from each other in relation to the camera all appear to be shot from the same angle."

Iran is known to doctor their photos.










[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ,]

8/11/2010 5:50:50 PM

Quote :

"if necessary, would launch a preemptive--or perhaps even a retaliatory--attack. I see no indication that we have such leadership at this time."

Quote :

"The scenario I posted is not out of the realm of possibility. Obama has already limited retaliation in certain circumstances:"

You are already backtracking from your first bit of bullshit.

I'm still waiting for your line of reasoning that saying we won't nuke you is the same is we won't hit you back if you hit us.

Oh, and this policy change of the Obama Administration wouldn't even apply to Iran since it is not in compliance with non-proliferation treaties.

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM. Reason : ,]

8/11/2010 7:08:40 PM

hooksaw is such a partisan hack

[Edited on August 11, 2010 at 7:10 PM. Reason : partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan ]

8/11/2010 7:10:28 PM

I have to agree, hooksaw. The quotations you've provided seem to suggest Obama said he *would* nuke the fuckers given proper motivation.

8/12/2010 8:58:44 AM

Funny/sad things is he prides himself on his English, and frequently corrects people's syntax/semantics in here and elsewhere. But, he doesn't even know what 'retaliation' means. What a nutcase.

8/12/2010 1:23:09 PM

I really wish some of you would stop name-calling and/or trolling. I made my points perfectly clear.

It is an indisputable fact that Obama has limited retaliation options--but I also made it clear that Iran and North Korea were "outliers" from these limitations. If you think an administration full of left-wing ideologues that has spent the last decade calling the Bush administration "warmongers" and worse is itching to retaliate for anything, you're deluded.

These. . .

Ex-CIA chief says clash with Iran more likely
July 26, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Former CIA director Michael Hayden says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the United States does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program."

Quote :

"'We engage. They continue to move forward,' Hayden said. 'We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward.'"

http://tinyurl.com/2cxxe3r

. . .are facts--I can't help that you don't like them. Please enlighten us all by posting your solution to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which most of Europe and other countries have said would destabilize the region.

Oh, that's right. Some of you don't have any solution whatsoever except to allow Iran to go nuclear, justified by your typical moral equivalence nonsense.

8/12/2010 5:56:43 PM

hey, don't forget to use the icon

8/12/2010 6:02:51 PM

^ Thanks for your input. Anything to offer on the topic? NO?!

8/12/2010 6:06:21 PM

wasn't hooksaw the one that said that jimmy carter wasn't just a bad president but that he actively wanted to destroy the country? or am i thinking of someone else?

this seems to be more of the same.

8/12/2010 6:19:37 PM

^ Thanks for your input. Anything to offer on the topic? NO?!

8/12/2010 6:25:46 PM

i guess it was, thought so

8/12/2010 6:26:16 PM

Please address the topic.

8/12/2010 6:29:28 PM

oh i thought i already had with my post here:

Quote :

"hooksaw is such a partisan hack [Edited on August 11, 2010 at 7:10 PM. Reason : partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan partisan ] "

8/12/2010 6:33:41 PM

^ Yeah, Carter's approach to Iran worked out just great, didn't it?

BTW, how many Republicans did you vote for in the '08 election? I vote for some Democrats in every election.

8/13/2010 2:29:04 AM