Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Chinese H-6 refueling tanker and technology. They have had in-flight refueling for a decade folks.








Simulator



A close look at the refueling probe



[edit on 24-12-2004 by Lucretius]




posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
thanks to lucretius,someone finally shows us the facts.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Yeah, I kinda thought that was common knowledge that the Chinese had in-flight refueling; the tech they use for it is older than what the U.S. uses though.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   
It's actually virtually identical... it was co-developed with Isreal



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   


As was already brought up earlier in this thread, SAMs operating against modern aircraft and trained pilots are batting about .001 in modern warfare. 1 kill for every 1000 SAMS launched.
If a base is subjected to missile strikes which destroy runways and fuel supplies thus limiting the ability to put up new aircraft, the base can be taken by approaching from 2 directions. Fighters in the air persue the first wave seen, which turns and runs, and now they are out of position to stop the next wave, which makes its raid and also escapes.


True, though, we seemed to play cat 'n mouse in Kosovo... You fly in with a SEAD package, they paint you and you get a HARM as a thank you gift. The guy in the F-16 didn’t go through the procedures and got blown out of the sky...
On the contrary I don’t se anyone else with the SEAD capabilities suck as the U.S. Pop in a few Hummve mounted Slammers, a few Hawks, and a few Pac-3s. They didn’t seem to have a hard time blowing our fighters out of the sky with all of their physical and electronically countermeasures...




I'm glad you gave some supporting evidence for that or else I might have doubted you. The wargames carrier out by the pentagon before we invaded Iraq showed 2 things: 1. They think a carrier can be sunk (along with the rest of the US fleet in the region). 2. America is too cocky to keep it's carriers out of harms way, simply because putting them closer allows many more sorties. Even after Van Ripper handed the Navy their arse in that excercise, they still chose to operate from the gulf.


Being cocky doesn’t mean one doesn’t take appropriate actions to keep his safe. What’s that missile defense system we are buying from the French (?) that will replace the failed, or aging Phalanx R2-D2 with a much more reliable system in the near future. With the developments in lasers and the fielding of them in the near future don’t rule those out for carrier defense in the near term... Although, that isn’t to say that carriers are invincible. If someone with the capabilities and a little luck like Iran wanted to it would be at least damaged.




Last but not least, the need to refuel in midair is a weakness because 1. It requires support from a land-based tanker which somewhat restricts options. 2. It reduces the amount of sorties you can fly. 3. It represents an opportunity for the enemy to attack you while you are weak (low on fuel, plus protecting the all important fuel tanker).


I'm talking about defense capable F/A-18Es. Put up a reasonable amount of them and they can get where they need to go... they are the same F/As as the attackers and will be picked up on EW at roughly the same time. No one knows that they are tankers and thus, no one knows that anyone is in the 4k or less range...




Thank god that Iran doesn't have even one single airplane, exocet, or silkworm in its arsenal. I am doubly thankful to god for his blessing of teleportation whereby the US fleet will at no point enter a fixed point such as the Suez Canal. I'm am thankful that the Russians would never dream of doing something to hurt America, such as telling Iran where their satellites have located the US fleet. Above all I'm thankful that Iranians are a bunch of ignorant ragheads who would never think to persue American aircraft back to their carrier at a distance. For all of these things, I praise God. Long live HIS chosen people- the USA, who shall never be harmed, Amen.


Let them try, they'll be sorry...




I guess you're right. Within a couple of weeks there wouldn't even be an Iranian army. Just look at how well this massive intelligence and airpower machine is locating and killing Iraqi insurgents, just like it anhilated the Taliban without ground troops, and just like it routed the Iraqis in mere days with no ground forces in 1991. Ooops, it historically takes months of US air superiority just to weaken the enemy,


Yeah, pretty hard to gain air superiority when you are fighting with cannon and 1st gen missile. This isn’t Vietnam. with reliable Slammers one can achieve a 6+ per flight kill ratio and still have fuel for CAP... With runway bombings and heavy fighter CAP-fighter sweep expect their airforce to be ruined within a few days...


Let’s assume that we are attacked, you really think we'd care about not bombing certain targets even if civilian casualties would be mounting? This isn’t Iraq, we don’t have to put a pretty face on it and try to preserve it...




The problem is that if Iran makes a move into Iraq then the oil will be stuck there, No oil = No machines for war = another Vietnam. And,with all the B-2s flying, the Americans will be paying a lot more tax. The cost of war alone is already enought to deter Bush from going into Iran.


They hold a little more fuel then a Mud Hen... Those cost a few years ago no more then ~15-20k an hour to operate on fuel... Don’t expect ~15 of them flying a mission or 2 a day to put a dent in the economy...


Iran isn’t the only country we get oil form people...


[edit on 24-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Chinese H-6 refueling tanker and technology. They have had in-flight refueling for a decade folks.


A decade? More like the program is:


Another recent modification of the H-6 is that of an air-to-air tanker. Although a program like this has ran for at least a decade, it is only a few years back when the aerial refueling capability of the PLAAF with H-6 tankers was confirmed. During the parade in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the People's Republic of China, an H-6 tanker and two J-8D interceptors with refueling probes were part of the display over Beijing.

...

The aerial refueling system used by the Chinese is the hose-and-drogue system in which the tanker aircraft rolls out a hose with a basket, which the receiving aircraft has to connect to with a probe. This system was developed in the late 1940s by British company Flight Refueling Ltd at Hurn airport, and it was this very same company, which developed the equipment currently in use with the PLAAF. Although the tanker force is still very small, consisting of some twenty aircraft at most, at least two versions of the H-6U tanker have so far been identified. The first one is almost definitely a rebuilt H-6D, and is called H-6DU. This one is easily recognized by the large H-6D style radome and glazed nose. The wing pylons for missile carriage are removed, but further outboard on the wings are two hose-drum-units or HDUs. These contain the hoses for fuel transfer on a winch, and the pumps.


www.china-defense.com...

It's very limited, and very primitive.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Iran will control 75% of the world's oil just by moving into Iraq. And,even with cannons,you do not want to be in a B-52 or B-1 bomber against a fighter using cannons.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
from the same website

www.china-defense.com...


As an old "tanker toad" (4000+ flying hours as a navigator/instructor nav in the KC-135 and its variants) I've been curious about the H-6's performance as a tanker and suspect that the aircraft may have been underestimated in this role. Supporting this notion is the fact that models of the Tu-16 were the Russians' most numerous tanker for decades, and the RAF used the Victor (similar to the Tu-16 in size and performance) as its primary tanker until recently. Especially considering that the H-6 tankers are primarily intended to support fighters - specifically the J-8D - which require a relatively small offload, this aircraft may be more capable than first appears.



From examining open sources it appears that the only mode of operation observed to date has been "buddy" or escort-type refueling. However, the HU-6 is equipped with an air-to-air Tacan-like system (based on Russian RSBN) that provides "mutual detection" (apparently azimuth and range information) between tanker and receiver within 200 km and is obviously intended to facilitate rendezvous. These are likely to be by timing (what the USAF terms an "enroute" rendezvous), and it's possible that something similar to an anchor-type refueling - which is, in essence, refueling in a holding pattern - is planned for some situations.





If you look at a map of Southeast Asia the capability this gives China becomes readily apparent. Operating from Hainan, J-8s could be employed for a range of options, from escorting a missile-armed H-6D on an anti-shipping sortie in the South China Sea to covering a Y-8 dropping Chinese special forces into northern Indonesia to teach proper respect for Chinese nationals. Particularly striking is the coverage this allows of the Spratly and Paracel islands. At any rate, the stated J-8D tactical radius with A/R of 1200 km is quite realistic and allows for considerable flexibility.

Does China's purchase of IL-78s imply that these will supplant the HU-6 tankers? I don't think so. A recent Australian study pointed out the advantages of small/medium tankers - flexibility and relatively low acquisition and operation costs - and lamented that the RAAF couldn't afford a mix of these with large "strategic" tankers. The US, the UK, and Russia all employ such a mix, and it appears that this is what China intends as well.

Seen in this light the HU-6 tanker appears to be a thoroughly practical proposition, one which provides a measurable boost to PLAAF and PLANAF power projection capabilities at relatively low cost.


It's plenty good enough

[edit on 24-12-2004 by Lucretius]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
We seemed to catch the activity on the Iraqi border, as well as take plenty of pictures of the Iraqis tearing down missile sites.

You still dont seem to be getting my point. Being able to see some things isn't enough.
Can we track where 1000 different targets go and keep our eyes on the hiding spots 24/7 to be sure they dont move again so that we are ready to destroy them all when the war starts? If not Iran will still have its cruise missiles and can whip them out and fire them if we present a target in the gulf. Being able to see some of what happens on the Iraqi border out in the open or in the Straight of Taiwan is one thing. Making sure that something is where you think and making sure it doesn't move is another.


I don't know whats really changed about China's demand in the last few decades, but they plan on having mid air refueling in a few years. I just doubt they'd have waited so long if it were so easy.

Apparently they do according to a post that's just been added. Even if they didn't this isn't exactly nuclear physics. They just had other things to spend money on first. You've got so much budget, so many men, so much material and you make choices. If mid-air refueling isn't a vital part of your strategy but improving your missile range is, you do the important one first, even if the other one is easier, because then you get your important one done a few months or years earlier.


This would be risky. It would give a long time for interception, I'd imagine. Plus, Iran would still be powerless to attack our airfields in Europe.

First of all, all war is risky. Getting the holy crap kicked out of you can be acceptable if you accomplish the crucial objective. If Iran had to sac their entire airforce for a mission that if successful would cost America a lot of aircraft and delay the development of America's offensive it would be worth it.
Second of all, as I have already pointed out, if you can reach Iran from a place then you can reach that place from Iran. Italy would be particularly vulnerable simply because it is not a very broad country. If you didn't happen to have down-looking radar in the right part of the Mediterranean then Iranian aircraft could perhaps attack any base there which America might hope to use, especially if they got permission to operate from Libya or another unfriendly nation in the area.
Very hard, very costly, ALMOST CERTAIN to never happen. Not impossible.


Iran could attack Turkey, but they'd probably find themselves pissing off other nations in the region. Muslim nations have shown they'll side with America when one of their neighbors shows agression towards other Muslim nations.

Most nations in the middle east couldn't take Iran and would have no reason to get themselves into that sort of trouble. Iraq has no military, Kuwait is too small to have an appreciable force, taking on Saudi would be within Iranian capabilities. Syria won't side with America- it's just realpolitik.
Jordan and Egypt become the only possible Arab intervention forces, and it would be very difficult for these nations to get their citizens on board for a joint effort with Israel- Israel's help is most important, so we may have to kiss Arab help goodbye.
Israel wont be in the war immediately though- they will need between 2-4 weeks to break through Syria, and they can't commit 100% to a war too far from their home or they could end up with Jordan and Egypt on their backs.
For 1-2 months it's just the IAF, Turkey, America, and the skeleton of Saudi. Formidable but not impossible to take on.


They could do that, but afterwards they'd be screwed. Without launching the attack on our troops in Iraq, and our airfields, nothing stops America from swiftly retaliating.

Iran at present is not prepared for the full war and would be much easier to stop, but Iran could take the fight to Iraq right now and make it bloody for us.


The Iraqis had months in Kuwait. I think they took some precautions. Either way, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the bombing, regardless of equipment loss. Out of 200,000, that's not bad, especially when considering we were also bombing many targets in Iraq.

tens of thousands out of 200,000... sounds like 10-20% to me. Good, but not enough to win the war without significant ground forces. It took a force of 500,000 to turn that war into the 100 hour rout that it was.



I would agree that airpower can not win an actual war, but I think the losses to Iran's infantry would greatly increase America's chances of repeling an invasion force.

You have to remember that Iranians wont be exposed for as long as the Iraqis were. This war will be made or broken in 1/3 the time of the US airwar of 91.


[quoteI didn't mean that. I just mean that we can bomb anywhere we want at any time. We could reach anywhere within hours. I doubt Iran's air defenses could do much to stop B-2 bombers attacking their troops trying to cross the Iraqi border.
Attack them yes. Stop them no.



There is really sort of an unfortunate double-standard for American wars. America is expected to utterly crush opponents. The opponent just has to make it messy on both sides. Even if it didn't force America out right away it would embolden the rest of the world, make that enemy a hero, and bruise American pride- thereby reducing America's military activity in the future. Incidents like Vietnam and Lebanon definately result in a reduction in American military activity.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Like an Iraqi commander once said:
"Before the war i had 61 tanks under my control. At the end of the aerial campaign i had 55 tanks under my control. After 15 minutes against the Abrams,i had none left."

All this shows that the US will need to send in ground troops. At the cost to effectiveness ratio of aerial bombardment shows its better to send in ground forces. Also,you cannot win a war just by bombing everyone,to win a war you have to occupy that country with ground forces. In the recent gulf war,it took the US Navy 3 weeks to ship in less than HALF of their forces. If the war was prolonged,the world's economy will take a plunge.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   


"Before the war i had 61 tanks under my control. At the end of the aerial campaign i had 55 tanks under my control. After 15 minutes against the Abrams,i had none left."


No duh troops would be needed. Don’t think that they wouldn’t have extreme amounts of CAS and don’t think that some ‘16s, ‘18s, and ‘10s armed with 6+ Mk-82s wouldn’t get good shots on a tank battalion...



At the cost to effectiveness ratio of aerial bombardment shows its better to send in ground forces.


Depends on what you’re priorities are... You all fail to realize that if one wants to send in attackers to level a city it isn’t hard. That of course wouldn’t be wise if you want the country to rebuild itself afterwards. In Iran’s case I think that we couldn’t give a - less what happens afterwards. Expect most of the major population centers to be leveled.


Sending in attackers with Mk-84s is far more effective at leveling cities then sending in troops.


[edit on 24-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   

You still dont seem to be getting my point. Being able to see some things isn't enough.
Can we track where 1000 different targets go and keep our eyes on the hiding spots 24/7 to be sure they dont move again so that we are ready to destroy them all when the war starts? If not Iran will still have its cruise missiles and can whip them out and fire them if we present a target in the gulf. Being able to see some of what happens on the Iraqi border out in the open or in the Straight of Taiwan is one thing. Making sure that something is where you think and making sure it doesn't move is another.


If we have satellites moving over the area, then it shouldn't be much of a problem.


Apparently they do according to a post that's just been added. Even if they didn't this isn't exactly nuclear physics. They just had other things to spend money on first. You've got so much budget, so many men, so much material and you make choices. If mid-air refueling isn't a vital part of your strategy but improving your missile range is, you do the important one first, even if the other one is easier, because then you get your important one done a few months or years earlier.


Seems more likely it's more for testing then actual combat. I don't think they have any real capability, certainly not anything to pass on to Iran.


First of all, all war is risky. Getting the holy crap kicked out of you can be acceptable if you accomplish the crucial objective. If Iran had to sac their entire airforce for a mission that if successful would cost America a lot of aircraft and delay the development of America's offensive it would be worth it.
Second of all, as I have already pointed out, if you can reach Iran from a place then you can reach that place from Iran. Italy would be particularly vulnerable simply because it is not a very broad country. If you didn't happen to have down-looking radar in the right part of the Mediterranean then Iranian aircraft could perhaps attack any base there which America might hope to use, especially if they got permission to operate from Libya or another unfriendly nation in the area.
Very hard, very costly, ALMOST CERTAIN to never happen. Not impossible.


Iran doesn't have the bases America does. They are limited to their own country. So, if they had midair refueling, its doubtful they could attack. Plus, Iran is ultimately more limited. America can attack from multiple directions.

Plus, Iran gains nothing if they destroy American capability, only to have their neighbors, as well as the Europeans set their sights on them. It's not a matter of risk and loss, but sheer survival.


Most nations in the middle east couldn't take Iran and would have no reason to get themselves into that sort of trouble. Iraq has no military, Kuwait is too small to have an appreciable force, taking on Saudi would be within Iranian capabilities. Syria won't side with America- it's just realpolitik.
Jordan and Egypt become the only possible Arab intervention forces, and it would be very difficult for these nations to get their citizens on board for a joint effort with Israel- Israel's help is most important, so we may have to kiss Arab help goodbye.


Syria has had improving ties with America. If Iran was showing agressive action, and attacking nations like Turkey and Italy, what makes you think they'd take any chances with Iran? Without a bumper between them and Iran, they'd probably just have the same relations they've had with Iraq.

While none of the nations in the region could actually take Iran seperate, together they'd pose a threat. It would also make getting those supplies from Russia or China more difficult.


Iran at present is not prepared for the full war and would be much easier to stop, but Iran could take the fight to Iraq right now and make it bloody for us.


Iran doesn't have the equipment, army size or training to challenge us in Iraq at this time. Our 150,000 troops are not without artillery and tanks.


tens of thousands out of 200,000... sounds like 10-20% to me. Good, but not enough to win the war without significant ground forces. It took a force of 500,000 to turn that war into the 100 hour rout that it was.


Out of that 500,000, only a fraction were used. Most of those troops were tokens of support from other nations. It was almost all American troops at the front fighting.

At the same time, Iraq had far more reserves then we did. They had a million man army.

As for the number killed, it's probably higher then 20%. Putting it anywhere near 10% isn't accurate.


You have to remember that Iranians wont be exposed for as long as the Iraqis were. This war will be made or broken in 1/3 the time of the US airwar of 91.


The Iranian army would be on the move, and most likely heavily concentrated as they pass through those mountains. America could very well make that invasion force a number one priority, unlike during the first Gulf War. We also have more ability then we did back then, and the Iranians do not have more protection.


Attack them yes. Stop them no.


It doesn't have to stop them, just do some heavy damage. If Iran lost a third of their men from bombing, that would do a whole lot for America's chances. It could very well destroy Iranian morale, as well. It did with Iraq. It could delay that army's march. It could give America's spread out troops more time.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT


No duh troops would be needed. Don’t think that they wouldn’t have extreme amounts of CAS and don’t think that some ‘16s, ‘18s, and ‘10s armed with 6+ Mk-82s wouldn’t get good shots on a tank battalion...


That was the same thing the USAF sent in for the 2nd gulf war. Problem is, no matter how old those AARPGs are,they do a good job of ripping apart F-16s. Even the thick armor of the A-10s can't stand a direct hit from one 60mm shell.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Here's my question. The Iranians have some substantial missiles (SUNBURN, and lower) around the Persian gulf, which presents the strongest threat to other naval forces.

How do the Iranians get targets to lock on to? If they have fixed radar sites, won't those be destroyed very quickly in a war with the US?

After that, will they have any significant over-the-horizon anti-naval capability?

Second question: if Iran tries to invade Iraq on land

wouldn't they be very vulnerable to US JSTARS etc as they drove on the highways? The US took a week to get to Baghdad against no resistance beyond basic ground troops and a good defense against helicopters.

It seems that air sorties from Incirlik backed by JSTARS would be feasible after a few days and that would hurt Iranian vehicle movement very substantially.

If they attacked Incirlik that would delay US air power for a little while, but what then? Turkey would invoke the NATO mutual defense clause and this would obligate all of NATO (France would weasel out somehow of course) to actually respond. And of course the not entirely insignificant Turkish army.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   


That was the same thing the USAF sent in for the 2nd gulf war. Problem is, no matter how old those AARPGs are,they do a good job of ripping apart F-16s. Even the thick armor of the A-10s can't stand a direct hit from one 60mm shell.


Believe me, a few flights of F-16s, F/A-18s and whomever else wants to join in flying at angles 10 or higher could take them out easily... any SAMs in the area will get token out quickly once they fire up the radar...
And if for some reason the pilots wanted to hit the deck and bomb let them go at it. I for sure the hell won’t be going under angles 5 if I’m ever sent on suck a mission… The risk comes with the job however.



wouldn't they be very vulnerable to US JSTARS etc as they drove on the highways? The US took a week to get to Baghdad against no resistance beyond basic ground troops and a good defense against helicopters.



Iran would have a hard enough time mustering the people willing to go on the suicide mission. I don’t think we have J-STARS up 24/7 but somehow they would be picked up and bombed to hell.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If we have satellites moving over the area, then it shouldn't be much of a problem.

Yeah let me exsplain some laws of physics, it takes more than 20 seconds to move a satalite because you cant just stop them , you have to adjust orbit.
Also if "shouldnt much of a problem" then why hasnt the NRA,CIA,OONI (office of naval intelegence) and what ever other intelegence agencies or units put satalites all over iraq , point is there is too much land to have a satalite over it all the time with still observing other nations.


First of all, all war is risky. Getting the holy crap kicked out of you can be acceptable if you accomplish the crucial objective. If Iran had to sac their entire airforce for a mission that if successful would cost America a lot of aircraft and delay the development of America's offensive it would be worth it.

No it wouldnt not in thier eyes, they would probably sacrifice some of it but not all.



Iran doesn't have the bases America does. They are limited to their own country. So, if they had midair refueling, its doubtful they could attack. Plus, Iran is ultimately more limited. America can attack from multiple directions.

Really? speaking of first hand knowledge of the iranian air forces top brass meetings huh?
Yeah multiple direction , thats if they get theirr and when they get their. It takes time and money, iran can stop american money comeing from the gulf easily by blockadeing the gulf.


Plus, Iran gains nothing if they destroy American capability, only to have their neighbors, as well as the Europeans set their sights on them. It's not a matter of risk and loss, but sheer survival.

Actually they get the biggest threat they have out of the picture so they can do what they want.


Syria has had improving ties with America. If Iran was showing agressive action, and attacking nations like Turkey and Italy, what makes you think they'd take any chances with Iran? Without a bumper between them and Iran, they'd probably just have the same relations they've had with Iraq.

Can you be sure they would side with the USA? No you can't.


While none of the nations in the region could actually take Iran seperate, together they'd pose a threat. It would also make getting those supplies from Russia or China more difficult.

What do you think they care most about , a large super power running riot in thier countries AND each other or just each other.



Iran doesn't have the equipment, army size or training to challenge us in Iraq at this time. Our 150,000 troops are not without artillery and tanks.

Yeah like you can think what it would be like to the troops there? Imagine apart from peace keeping they would need to fight enemy units, now if the insurgents and iranians teamed up they could hurt a hell of a lot of the troops.


Out of that 500,000, only a fraction were used. Most of those troops were tokens of support from other nations. It was almost all American troops at the front fighting.

Yeah britain didnt do anything in basra or take anyports, yeah stupid british not helping in the war, especcially not takeing over from marines in bagdad... yeah stupd british.

At the same time, Iraq had far more reserves then we did. They had a million man army.

Yeah AK47 vs F18 who wins? , wow thats a difficult question.





The Iranian army would be on the move, and most likely heavily concentrated as they pass through those mountains.

No most liekly in small convoys to aviod american air patrols.


America could very well make that invasion force a number one priority, unlike during the first Gulf War. We also have more ability then we did back then, and the Iranians do not have more protection.

They do , how would you get troops to iran BTW? Land or sea?


It doesn't have to stop them, just do some heavy damage. If Iran lost a third of their men from bombing, that would do a whole lot for America's chances.

If america lost the USS Harry S. Truman?
Or if they lost the very lonely USS Juneau all alone in the gulf of aden?
Tell me that it would have a great effect on morale and support.


It could very well destroy Iranian morale, as well. It did with Iraq. It could delay that army's march. It could give America's spread out troops more time.

It could aka it might mabye not mabye aye, or it could just make them angrier and therefore harder to kill.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer



Apparently they do according to a post that's just been added. Even if they didn't this isn't exactly nuclear physics. They just had other things to spend money on first. You've got so much budget, so many men, so much material and you make choices. If mid-air refueling isn't a vital part of your strategy but improving your missile range is, you do the important one first, even if the other one is easier, because then you get your important one done a few months or years earlier.


Seems more likely it's more for testing then actual combat. I don't think they have any real capability, certainly not anything to pass on to Iran.
e.



dude you are really off ey!






In their frustration for a successful offensive against Iran on the northern front between 12th and 22nd March of 1981, Iraq fired two Frog-7 surface-to-surface Rockets against cities of Dezful and Ahwaz.
Within days after this attack, commanders of the 31st and 32nd Tactical Fighter Wing in Shahrokhi Tactical Air Base (TAB 3, near Hamadan) planned a counter attack. According to Iranian intelligence, the Iraqi Air Force removed most of her valuable assets to its Al-Wallid air base on the Baghdad-Amman highway close to Jordanian border, part of H-3 complex. There at least two squadrons equipped with ten Tu-22B and at least six Tu-16 heavy bombers as well as two other units with MiG-23BNs and Su-20s were hidden. Supposedly out of reach of the Iranian Air Force. But, Iraqi's were wrong. For their operation against Al-Wallid, 31st and 32nd Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) gathered their best F-4E Phantom crews, four F-14A Tomcats, one Boeing 747 airborne command post and three Boeing 707 tankers. The plan was as follows, since the interceptors of the Iraqi air defenses were usually not very active, especially not in Northern Iraq. The only other obstacle was that Iranian pilots had to be careful to avoid SAMs in order to reach their target. Al-Wallid was almost 700 kilometers from Hamadan, and Phantoms had to fly over Baghdad. To increase their chances Iranian commanders decided to deploy their aircraft to Tabriz (TAB 2) first, and then from there they would have a "clean" route passing by Mosul and Kirkuk toward H-3. Since Phantoms could not reach their target without refueling in the air, two Boeing 707-3J9C had to be sent to Turkey in order to help the operation by meeting the attackers somewhere over northern Iraq.
The operation began in the early hours of the April 4,1981. The formation of eight F-4E, accompanied by two airborne reserves (whose pilots were sad enough that they had to return as nobody had any technical problems), started from Tabriz (TAB 2) and crossed into Iraq. Two pairs of F-14 Tomcats stayed at low altitude over the border waiting for their return. Sometime earlier, two Boeing 707 started from Istanbul International Airport in Turkey (officially in order to return to Iran) and clandestinely diverted from international commercial route in order to fly into Iraq. Flying at very low altitude between mountains of northwest Iraq, two tankers meet the Phantom formation and topped their fuel tanks, before escaping without an incident back towards Tabriz. The Phantom attackers then turned toward their prime target. The surprise was terrible for Iraqi's, not a single Iraqi interceptor on three bases of H-3 complex was in the air or ready to start.
The Phantoms split their formation into two sections coming from several different directions and attacked different parts of the base. First they bombed both runways at Al- Wallid in order to block any Iraqi fighters from taking off. Then further, bombs destroyed several hardened aircraft shelters. In the meantime, cluster bombs of the second group of Phamtons wrecked three large hangars, two radar stations and five Iraqi bombers. Subsequently, other parked aircraft were strafed. Iraqi's still hadn't reacted, even their anti-aircraft fire was weak, Phantoms had enough time to make multiple attacks and hit one enemy aircraft after another with the fire from their guns. No less than 48 different planes were claimed as destroyed or badly damaged at the end.
Finally, the whole Iranian formation turned back towards their base. Not even one F-4E was damaged during the attack on Al-Wallid and although many Iraqi interceptors were hasty scrambled toward them, none could catch up with Phantoms.
The Iranian attack against Al-Wallid is the most successful such operation against any air base since 1967. Never again would only eight aircraft destroy such a large number of enemy aircrafts on the ground in one mission.
Iraqi air defense command later claimed that Syrian interceptors were helping Iranians during the attack, and their radar followed Phantoms for some 67 minutes. If it was so, there are only two questions to be asked from Iraqi air defense. First, If they were alarmed by Syrian interceptors, why Iraqi interceptors weren't in the air already?. Secondly, why didn't they succeeded in stopping the brave bunch from the 31st and 32nd TFW?
source



[edit on 24-12-2004 by zurvan]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Oh, well duh! Of course their few remaining American built F-14s and F-4s have the capability. The other fighters probably don’t... It's been debated by people that I know that are also really into military aviation and there are only a few, if any F-14s in flyable condition. The rest of them are hanger queens where the last remaining few will be joining them shortly.


Sep

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Oh, well duh! Of course their few remaining American built F-14s and F-4s have the capability. The other fighters probably don’t... It's been debated by people that I know that are also really into military aviation and there are only a few, if any F-14s in flyable condition. The rest of them are hanger queens where the last remaining few will be joining them shortly.


Why would Iran make the phoenix missiles for then? (I am not an expert in this area to say the least)



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   


Why would Iran make the phoenix missiles for then? (I am not an expert in this area to say the least)


Please coma again... I don't understand.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join