How fast is Iran catching up to U.S. in terms of military?

Guys,

The only nation that could catch up with US military projects is China.

Look NR, like you I am an Iranian too, but bro, think wise please, the islamic republics military is not so powerful as you think.


Before the 1979 revolution Iran was the 5th non-nuclear military power in the world with the most advanced U.S. weapons like missles, f-14, cobra's, chinook's, Bell's, tanks, submarines, fragetts etc... But today the F-14 are retired except in Iran and with some Russian Mig-29 you can not shoot any F-15,16,18, .... down.

The Islamic Government prefer to fund Arab Terrorist organizations than its military forces. Do not forget, they are proud of their Basiji and Hezbollah, because they are the bodyguards of IRI. I've got a link for you:

www.parasteshlite.com

I think if we had still the Shah as our leader we had after USA the second modern/advanced military in the world by now.

About Israel, that nation has been from 539 B.C. till 1979 A.C. our best friend and allied. Even in the Iraq-Iran war they were the only one who supplied us with weapons and put their pilots lifes in danger to help Iran with the war. While United States, Sovjet Union, Arab countries, China and Europe were helping Saddams Iraq, Israeli F-16's flew many mission above Iraq and shoot Iraqi military ground-stuff down to help us! PLEASE do not forget it!

So they are not endangering us, but the Islamic regime is endangering them. former president Rafsanjani said once: if Israel use nuclear bomb on the Islam world they will kill only a couple of million moslims, but if we drop a nuclear bomb on them, there is no Israel anymore! And what do you think about presindent Ahmadinejad's words about wiping Israel off?!!!!

About USA, well, hell, they did not burn IRI flag. It was IRI who burned USA flag. Face it or not, we will never be able to defeat US military forces! But an US invasion would be the second Vietnam!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 25/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 25-11-2005 by aria]

[edit on 25-11-2005 by aria]

Originally posted by aria
The only nation that could catch up with US military projects is China.

Funny, last time I checked the UK alone has technology that is equal and in some cases better than the US.

Devilwasp:

What I meant by that quote was that China is after USA the second country in the world that spend more mony on their military than on something else.

Some countries does have technology that others don't have. For example look at the JSF project. Both of the fighters can fly vertically. Before the project started there was only one jetfigher in the world who could fly vertically: the British Harrier. Indeed, in some cases other countries have better technology than the US. Israeli Army uses US Abrahams; but smarter version (that they modified): two doors at the back-side of the tank; in case of any danger the crew can exit the tank with no difficulty.

I can give you tens of examples, but you are absolutely right!

Originally posted by aria
Devilwasp:

What I meant by that quote was that China is after USA the second country in the world that spend more mony on their military than on something else.

Money dont mean squat my friend...

Technology wise the Iranian military is no match against the US. However, a war with Iran is not a "piece of cake". Iran will most likely shut down the Persian Gulf with mines, missiles and (mini) subs.

Blobber

Originally posted by NR

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
But you have to wonder why we over throwed the Shah, that guy was just a puppet and nothing more. Our economy wasn't doing so good with him on it and at that time poverty was very high in Iran with him in power. If Dr.Mossadegh wasn't overthrowned back in 50's than all this wouldn't have happend. Now lets stick to the topic dont want this to start with all the politic crapp again....

I do not agree with that. I'm not saying that under Shah everything was perfect, no political system is perfect. Not even in the West. But At least it was far far better than the Islamic Republic regime.

After the Arabs overthrowned the last Sassanian King some 1400 years ago, Iran lived in poverty and dictatorship of Arab Khalifs and new-moslim Persian kings. In the past 13 centuries Iran had only 3 good kings:

• Nader Shah Afshar
  
• Reza Shah Pahlavi the Great
  
• Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
  

This 3 Shah's were the only 3 who did think about the present and future of Iran. They fought poverty badly and begun to modernize Iran.
Reza Shah The Great came to power after a coup he overthrowned the Qajar dynasty which was controlled by the British government.
Reza Shah begun immediately with modernizing Iran, some of his works:

• Building Roads
  
• Building Bridges
  
• Building Tunnels
  
• Building Railways
  
• Building Schools
  
• Building Universities
  
• Building Hospitals
  
• Building Dams
  
• Building Houses
  
• Building Industries
  
• Founder of Iranian Airforce
  
• Founder of Iranian Marine (last Iranian marine was in 301 A.C.)
  
• Ban on veil
  
• New Teaching Modules/Systems on schools
  
• etc...
  

Mohammad Reza Shah followed his fathers foot steps. Unlike what you mentioned in your quote he fought against poverty, he gave to peasants lands, $1,- was almost 2 Iranian toman and everyone could buy houses, cars, clothes, etc... The people were richer than the Dutch nation.

In those days there were almost 70.000 girls who were legally selling their bodies in whole Iran, Islamic Republic made that 600.000 only in Tehran (source: Islamic Republic News Agency)

In those days there were almost 22.000 addicted people in whole Iran, Islamic Republic made that 2.000.000!!! (source: Islamic Republic News Agency)

Under the Shah Iran had an economical growht of 38.2% each year, Islamic Republic made that to 6.3% a year (source: IMF, globaledge.msu.edu)

Under the Shah every Iranian could visit Western countries without any Visum/Visa, today they triple check IRI passport (source: no source needed)

etc...

Islamic Regime brought us:

• Once Again Dictatorship
  
• Hardline Islam
  
• Embaressment
  
• Terrorism
  
• Bad Name
  
• Economical Boycots
  
• Unrest
  
• Criminalization
  
• Economical Backward
  
• Etc...
  

I'm not saying that under Shah everything was perfect, no political system is perfect. But At least it was far far better than the Islamic Republic regime.

NR, you are a IRIAF pilot, you are a soldier of Iran, you are serving the people, how can you let those ayatollas and basijis sell young Iranian girls to Arab nations like slaves, how can you let those fat basiji guys be your supreme officers, how can you let those basiji, hezbollaei beat and kill young Iranian students? how can you let them seek for war to kill more Iranian souls? How can you accept orders from guys who did not finish their military academic? How can you bliefe that Islamic Republic is better than Shah's regime?

My grandfather was an IIAF F-14 pilot: General Ayat Mohagheghi, executed by Islamic Republic. Reason: he was a supporter of Shah.


[edit on 25-11-2005 by aria]


Mod Edit: Fixed quote code.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by aria
After the Arabs overthrowned the last Sassanian King some 1400 years ago, Iran lived in poverty and dictatorship of Arab Khalifs and new-moslim Persian kings. In the past 13 centuries Iran had only 3 good kings:

• Nader Shah Afshar
  
• Reza Shah Pahlavi the Great
  
• Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
  

This 3 Shah's were the only 3 who did think about the present and future of Iran. They fought poverty badly and begun to modernize Iran.

Damn mate, you just massacred Iran's history. First I have to disagree with you regarding Nadir Khan. He was indeed a military genius, but his civil rule was probably one of the worst in Iran's history. I mean you have to question a man who blinds his own son for no apparent reason.

Reza Khan "the great" as you put it, overthrow what real great men of his time such as such as Baghir Khan and Sattar Khan achieved during the constitutional revolution. Yes Iran didn’t take off as a democracy but it was never given enough time.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, I have no opinion on. He did great things but did terrible things at the same time.

And regarding these men being Iran's only "good kings" after the Islamic invasion, I think you are way off. My personal favourite is Karim Khan Zand. There were many other greats such as Shah Abbas the Great, the entire Samani dynasty and the Safari dynasty.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Money dont mean squat my friend...

Says who, devilwasp?
When applied to military and military related R&D and other applicable aspects thereof, money means everything.
Example: How long do you think Russia is going to get away with paying their top air force pilots, who, as a matter of fact, get less than 25-40 hours training flight time a month, approxly. $300 a month before it takes a toll on the Russian air force as a whole?

More examples can be found and mentioned.
Money means a great deal more than don't mean squat. In everyday life you can go around merrily saying and believing such, but when applied to foreign policy and a standing military, and the aspects it covers, money walks and talks.






seekerof

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Well luckily they are rather strong geopolitically speaking and probably will not have to rely on their conventional ( or not so) forces any time soon. If they had to they would probably fail as badly as many others have considering the state of their air defense forces in general. I expected a far more reliable network when i did some research on that but it clearly was not there. So unless their hiding it very well , or promptly get reinforcements in the future, i do not see how the Iranian army could defend the country as a national entity ( protect the borders from invasion that is) . That being said Iran is not Iraq and the type of casualties America would suffer policing ( wich they are failing at so badly in Iraq) Iran would be on an entirely different scale.

To quote William Blum on the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953:

"Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent."

Stellar

Originally posted by Seekerof
Says who, devilwasp?
When applied to military and military related R&D and other applicable aspects thereof, money means everything.

Not always, the russians proved this in the cold war and WW2.

Example: How long do you think Russia is going to get away with paying their top air force pilots, who, as a matter of fact, get less than 25-40 hours training flight time a month, approxly. $300 a month before it takes a toll on the Russian air force as a whole?

More examples can be found and mentioned.
Money means a great deal more than don't mean squat. In everyday life you can go around merrily saying and believing such, but when applied to foreign policy and a standing military, and the aspects it covers, money walks and talks.

Not always seek, there are many cases where countries with very low budgets have come out with military tech and capabilities that match the US.
You are correct it does mean a lot overall , but in many cases money doesnt mean anything.

Just remember that because something "looks" like something it doesn’t necessarily function as well as what it resembles. Guns are a good example. There are many cheap knockoff clones of world renowned assault rifles.

Well, i definitely have to agree with those folks who say Iran wouldn't be a cake walk when it comes to the US holding and occupying the country. There is no country on this earch that really has an efficient defense against insurgents, gorillas, and terrorists who jump in and out from the public crowds taking pop shots at soldiers and blowing themselves up.

However, in any conventional face to face fought war against the US,...the truth be told.....it would be a complete massacre against any opponent. This is what the US specializes in. This is why they are known as a world dominant power. "Coneventionaly".

Just a few pieces of info:
1.4 million plus active troops
860,000 plus reserves
over 10 active naval carrier fleets
4,000 plus naval air craft deployed witht he navy alone
7,000 plus aircraft in service in the USAF
4 billion plus military budget in 2005 estimate.

en.wikipedia.org...

Iran really is not making any gains on the US militarily anytime in the near future. I mean none of these factual figures even include the black budget which they probably designate many billions of more dollars to that then Iran does to its enire military.

As far as heart is concerned,....a soldier is a soldier. If he is fighting for his life, then he is fighting with his heart. Neither side should underestimate the heart of the other. Realistically, other than a difficult gorilla warfare in occupying Iran, the conventional quick overthrow of their organized military is simply and undeniably unavoidable.

carburetor



[edit on 1-12-2005 by Mr Carburetor]

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
4 billion plus military budget in 2005 estimate.

Where do all you people come up with these off-the-wall estimates?

The US Defense budget as of FY06 is 441.6 billion.
The US Defense Budget is seemingly growing by leaps and bounds.
Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
Fiscal Year 2001 it was $310 billion.
Fiscal Year 2000 it was $288.8 billion.

As of the FY04, Iran was spending 3.5 billion on defense.

Numbers dont mean everything...But they do mean a LOT.

As for the topic: Iran has a very long way to go...it would take them decades to catch us...and thats if we stopped all R&D projects and just stayed at our current level...which of course would never happen.
If the US had no interest in freeing the Iranian poeple then that means we could completely dessimate you. Our Air supremacy would wipe your country off the face of the earth.
But, if we were to take on the same role in Iran as we currently are in Iraq then the war would be much harder.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Murcielago]

Originally posted by aria

NR, you are a IRIAF pilot, you are a soldier of Iran, you are serving the people, how can you let those ayatollas and basijis sell young Iranian girls to Arab nations like slaves, how can you let those fat basiji guys be your supreme officers, how can you let those basiji, hezbollaei beat and kill young Iranian students? how can you let them seek for war to kill more Iranian souls? How can you accept orders from guys who did not finish their military academic? How can you bliefe that Islamic Republic is better than Shah's regime?

You have voted aria for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Seekerof
Says who, devilwasp?
When applied to military and military related R&D and other applicable aspects thereof, money means everything.

Not always, the russians proved this in the cold war and WW2.

Excuse me?

Russia was BEHIND in technology the whole time. Hell, just look at the differences in submarine technology, much less air craft.

The US was flying U-2's and SR-71's all over Russian defended air space, yet we lost 1 aircraft. How many times did Russia come close to invading our airspace?

Then of course their is nuclear technology. Our warheads were and are far more accurate, as well as smaller. And don't get me started on communication systems...

Russia was a power in WWII and the Cold war because of numbers not superior technology. In fact, it was because of their overall inferior technology that they needed such numbers. Frankly, your own example has argued against you.

One thing is for sure - Iran will not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and you can take that to the bank.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor
4 billion plus military budget in 2005 estimate.

Where do all you people come up with these off-the-wall estimates?

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Murcielago]

Off the wall ? not really. I clearly posted a link and reference where it stated the more detailed budget. I simply stated 4 billion plus, to reflect my ideas. The link i posted has figures darn near close to yours. If your comment was not intended to be disrespectful then please forgive my reply.

Carburetor

The title of this thread should read:

"How fast is the US pulling away from Iran in terms of military?"

The answere would be: Damn fast

Iran has signed a deal with Russia to buy 29 TOR-M1 systems designed to bring down aircraft and guided missiles at low altitudes today.

This deal is the biggest sale of Russian defense hardware to Iran for about five years

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Excuse me?

Russia was BEHIND in technology the whole time. Hell, just look at the differences in submarine technology, much less air craft.


The US was flying U-2's and SR-71's all over Russian defended air space, yet we lost 1 aircraft. How many times did Russia come close to invading our airspace?

Then of course their is nuclear technology. Our warheads were and are far more accurate, as well as smaller. And don't get me started on communication systems...

Russia was a power in WWII and the Cold war because of numbers not superior technology. In fact, it was because of their overall inferior technology that they needed such numbers. Frankly, your own example has argued against you.

Explain the AK family then? Most effective and most reliable rifles known.
Explain why most russian kit lastest longer or was easily replacible than american or german kit?

The allies where able to burn off shermans in WW2 due to one fact ; easy and cheap.
The russians followed this idea with tanks.

Also, are you trying to say that the HIND family is now crap?

The russians may not have had HIGH levels of tehcnology but the kit they did build was impressive you and I know and have spokne about this before mad man...

I never implied that the russians had "superior" technology, I said that they maintained a high level of technology which was comparable to the US in the coldwar in some areas.