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.

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.

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).

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Attack them yes. Stop them no.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)