It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Explain the AK family then? Most effective and most reliable rifles known.


Yes, it is very reliable. It is also terribly inaccurate. I have owned an AK, and I sold it. I didn't like it at all to be perfectly honest.

I don't know how much personal experience you have with the rifle, but mine was not a good one. I much prefer the Ruger Mini-14 I replaced the AK with.


Explain why most russian kit lastest longer or was easily replacible than american or german kit?


By kit you mean?


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


And we see how US tanks have faired against their Soviet counter-parts. Russian shells stick out of DU armor like wooden arrows in a shield.


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


No, simply not as good as US stuff.


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 agree fully that the Russians have built some very good stuff. It does not mean however that it was as technologically advanced as US and Western hardware.


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.


No, you said that money does not mean much in producing high end technology, and used Russia during the cold war as an example.

I simply pointed out that although they ay have been a worthy foe, it was not due to their technology being a rival to that of the US, but rather that they had sheer numbers. In fact, the only way the west could keep paridy with the USSR was through higher levels of technology to off set the Soviets greater numbers.

Again, I point to the aviation and maritime sectors as proof. Our ships were better, they had more of them. Our planes were better, they had more of them.




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yes, it is very reliable. It is also terribly inaccurate. I have owned an AK, and I sold it. I didn't like it at all to be perfectly honest.

Well shotguns arent very accurate ethier.


I don't know how much personal experience you have with the rifle, but mine was not a good one. I much prefer the Ruger Mini-14 I replaced the AK with.

I have been handling them since I was about 12.
And I agree I have heard the tales of how bad it is.


By kit you mean?

Kit, aka the gear a soldier wears or uses.



And we see how US tanks have faired against their Soviet counter-parts. Russian shells stick out of DU armor like wooden arrows in a shield.

You throw enough shells a target and it will crack, tell me just how many shots can an abrahm take?


No, simply not as good as US stuff.

By I wasnt comparing it lol, whats the american equivilant? The black hawk? The apache?


I agree fully that the Russians have built some very good stuff. It does not mean however that it was as technologically advanced as US and Western hardware.

Well it depends on what you call "advanced" ,I mean the US and the USSR stole each others gear.

The patriot shows this.



No, you said that money does not mean much in producing high end technology, and used Russia during the cold war as an example.

Yes that I did, I never said it was better than the wests.


I simply pointed out that although they ay have been a worthy foe, it was not due to their technology being a rival to that of the US, but rather that they had sheer numbers. In fact, the only way the west could keep paridy with the USSR was through higher levels of technology to off set the Soviets greater numbers.

It wasnt due to sheer numbers alone, it was also due to the fact they had a decent ammount of tech at a decent level.


Again, I point to the aviation and maritime sectors as proof. Our ships were better, they had more of them. Our planes were better, they had more of them.

Well depends what you mean by better, I mean do you better as in "stronger faster and harder"?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
Think about it, we got U.S. and Israel threatening us, you think were just gonna stand there and say you can walk in and take our land? If there was a war i'm sure we learned from Iraq war and have enough missiles that can do the job, i'll post a picture on a island near persian gulf called Kharg where it has hundreds of missile silos waiting to be shootin out.[edit on 18-11-2005 by NR]


If you think that the US would let this island facility operate during an attack on Iran by the US you are fooling yourself. The attack on Iran would be much different than the attack on Iraq because of Irans 1st strike capabilities. This attack would start with an air assualt the likes the world has never seen. An all out air assualt using B-52's, B-1,B-2,cruise missiles, and the rest of the military might of the US Navy and Air Force. I do not doubt or underestimate the strenght of the Iranian military, but they are not in the same league as the US. Their limited modern strike capabilities would be neutralized in minutes.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
To answer the question how fast Iran is catching up to the US in terms of military, theyre not. Sorry, its simple economics really, and as someone mentioned earlier the US has proven its ablility to man handle the russian equipment that makes up for most of the Iranian military hardware. While they are making improvements in the self-sufficiency dept., Fiscally it is impossible. But I will say this, the Russian fighters they have are excellent planes, the only thing seperating them from the ability that US fighters have is range, russian fighters all seem to have this shortcoming.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well shotguns arent very accurate ethier.


That is a poor analogy. A shot gun is used for CQB, breach/entry, and hunting. An AK is an assult rifle.

They are two different tools for different jobs. Shotguns work by spreading the 'shot' of their shells in a wide pattern, while an AK is supposed to be a precision rifle with full auto supresing fire ability.



I have been handling them since I was about 12.


Not to get too far off topic but if you live in the UK, how can you handle an AK? I thought it was illegal to own them.



Kit, aka the gear a soldier wears or uses.


Well, then I would say Russia was years behind in imaging equipment (NVGs), years behind in dgital camo, and had poorer boots and food storage.



You throw enough shells a target and it will crack, tell me just how many shots can an abrahm take?


A lot.


The point is that by the time a russian tank might have gotten enough shots off, it would already be dead. SABOT rounds will generally take a tank out in one shot, and the M-1 has far better targetting and sensor systems (again, higher technology).



By I wasnt comparing it lol, whats the american equivilant? The black hawk? The apache?


Black hawk most likey, as it can carr troops.



Well it depends on what you call "advanced" ,I mean the US and the USSR stole each others gear.


By advaned I mean stealth aircraft, Mach 3 spy planes, space ships that go to the moon, ICBMs that can put a warhead through the uprights of a football goal post, etc etc etc.


The patriot shows this.


Exactly how does the Patriot missle system show this?




It wasnt due to sheer numbers alone, it was also due to the fact they had a decent ammount of tech at a decent level.




Yes, they had modern weapons. No, they were not on par with the US over all in advanced weapons systems. That was what was being dscussed...R&D, technology, etc.

Money has everything to do with technology.



Well depends what you mean by better, I mean do you better as in "stronger faster and harder"?


Better over all, as in which one gives you the best chance to kill the other.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
i just want to say i wish there were more intelligent iranians like aria. ill give him my first ever vote for atsotm award for being fair minded and not some white american hater



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
That is a poor analogy. A shot gun is used for CQB, breach/entry, and hunting. An AK is an assult rifle.

Still both can be innacurate, a firearm is still a firearm.


They are two different tools for different jobs. Shotguns work by spreading the 'shot' of their shells in a wide pattern, while an AK is supposed to be a precision rifle with full auto supresing fire ability.

What makes you think it was supposed to be precise?
As you said they are two diffrent tools , doesnt it mean that possibly the AK, M-16 and the SA-80 are all desgined for diffrent purposes.



Not to get too far off topic but if you live in the UK, how can you handle an AK? I thought it was illegal to own them.

Not the AK but the L-98 (SA-80 cadet version) , the LSW (a bigger brother of the SA-80), No.8 bolt action rifle and the L81A1.


Well, then I would say Russia was years behind in imaging equipment (NVGs), years behind in dgital camo, and had poorer boots and food storage.

It was behind I never questioned that but I am asking was it "poor"?
Or was it "ok"?


A lot.


The point is that by the time a russian tank might have gotten enough shots off, it would already be dead. SABOT rounds will generally take a tank out in one shot, and the M-1 has far better targetting and sensor systems (again, higher technology).

The fact I am trying to say that is even the mighty M-1 and the Challanger cant take That much fire before it gets totalled.



Black hawk most likey, as it can carr troops.

Does the black hawk have the same armour?
Is the black hawk faster?
Is it as heavily armed?



By advaned I mean stealth aircraft, Mach 3 spy planes, space ships that go to the moon, ICBMs that can put a warhead through the uprights of a football goal post, etc etc etc.

Then you mean that they are technologicaly advanced GENERALLY, not specifically.



Exactly how does the Patriot missle system show this?

Surely you remember the thread that showed the story about the Latest russian missile system (Forgive me but I forget its name) and the patriot where basically the same due to americans and russians copying each other so much.






Yes, they had modern weapons. No, they were not on par with the US over all in advanced weapons systems. That was what was being dscussed...R&D, technology, etc.

Money has everything to do with technology.

Money does play a part but it doesnt rule it, if you throw money at something it still doesnt make it better.
As I said this isnt comparing the US to the USSR , I am using the fact that the USSR kept a decent level of tech even though it didnt spend as much as the US.



Better over all, as in which one gives you the best chance to kill the other.

But that doesnt mean "better" it just has more parts that are better.

I mean would you rather use an LSW or the M-16 in a long range fire fight?

Would you use a land rover or a humvee?

Everyone of them is built for thier strenghts and weakness's.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
devilwasp, the point I think he was trying to make is you cant compare a shotgun and an infantry rifle. And secondly the Ak-47, SA-80, and M16 are made for exactly the same purposes. To be the main infantry rifle for ground troops. The AK is known for accuracy issues, but makes up for it in reliability and is basically no maintenance needed rifle. The M16 and SA-80(Later evolved into the L85) both shared reliability issues but have gradually been worked out although not completley. But all three are made for the exact same purpose.
world.guns.ru...
world.guns.ru...
world.guns.ru...

And are you kidding, the Challenger 2 is the heaviest armoured tank in NATO. The Abrams is behind the Challenger 2 in that department. They are made to take multiple hits, possibly many more not sure on exactly how many but they are made to take quite a beating.
www.globalsecurity.org...

I dont know much about the Blackhawk, but here knock yourself out.
www.globalsecurity.org...

When you get into R&D, money is everything. To get the best minds in a field to work for you, you will need loads of money. If you dont have the money, you cant do the research, do the tests, build prototypes, put it into trials.

When they put a new piece of equipment into R&D, they are not basing it on their strengths and weaknesses. They look at benchmarks that are set by the DOD or MOD. They give the specs to engineers and researchers and it is then their jobs to put the product together to specifications.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Still both can be innacurate, a firearm is still a firearm.


You can't be serious comparing shotgun which has no rifling and fires ball berrings to an assult rifle which has rifling and fires a solid lead bullet shaped for maximum ballistics.



What makes you think it was supposed to be precise?


Ohhh, I dunno, call it a hunch


As a general rule, rifles are supposed to be accurate.




It was behind I never questioned that but I am asking was it "poor"?
Or was it "ok"?


We weren't discusing if there stuff was poor or not we were discussing how advanced it was, particularly in relation to funding.

As I have pointed out, Russia was not as advanced as the US in nearly every area. That would point to a near direct corilation between funding and technology.




The fact I am trying to say that is even the mighty M-1 and the Challanger cant take That much fire before it gets totalled.


But again, in real world combat, these MBTs are so advanced that against Russian tanks they probably would not take much fire. Russian tanks simply lacked the technology of their western ounter parts (again, because of money).



Does the black hawk have the same armour?


Frankly I don't know off the top of my head.


Is the black hawk faster?


See above


Is it as heavily armed?


It can be depending on how it is configured.



Then you mean that they are technologicaly advanced GENERALLY, not specifically.


Both, actually. Again, there are some specific areas where Russia may have/be more advanced. But they are few and far between. On the whole, they were and are well behind.



Surely you remember the thread that showed the story about the Latest russian missile system (Forgive me but I forget its name) and the patriot where basically the same due to americans and russians copying each other so much.


No, actually I do not remember it. In any case US sensory, targeting, and tracking systems are more advanced then Russias, and thus, our missles are better.



.
Money does play a part but it doesnt rule it, if you throw money at something it still doesnt make it better.
As I said this isnt comparing the US to the USSR , I am using the fact that the USSR kept a decent level of tech even though it didnt spend as much as the US.






But that doesnt mean "better" it just has more parts that are better.




Give me a break man. Something is better because it has more parts that are better. The best athletes are the best combination of size, speed, strength, agility, acceleration, and coordination. You wouldn't say Micheal Jordan had the most parts of his game that were better, you'd say he was the best shooting guard to ever play basket ball.

The fact that he had amazing size, speed, and jumping ability etc were why he was the best.

Bottom line, if you are a pilot in the cold war, do want to be flying US aircraft into combat against Russian aircraft, or Russian against American?

Do you want to be in an Ohio or Typhoon?

Do you want to be in an M-1 or a T-whatever?

B-2 or blackjack?

I think you get the point.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You can't be serious comparing shotgun which has no rifling and fires ball berrings to an assult rifle which has rifling and fires a solid lead bullet shaped for maximum ballistics.

Comparing them? No, I am simply saying that a weapon doesnt need to be precise.


Ohhh, I dunno, call it a hunch


As a general rule, rifles are supposed to be accurate.

If thats so then why just give it a plain iron sight? For cheapness?
It doesnt need to be super accurate to work.
The SA-80 is very accurate but unreliable, whereas the AK is not very accurate but is reliable.

Now you cant be seriosly trying to tell me that rifles are ONLY gauged upon how accurate they are?



We weren't discusing if there stuff was poor or not we were discussing how advanced it was, particularly in relation to funding.

As I have pointed out, Russia was not as advanced as the US in nearly every area. That would point to a near direct corilation between funding and technology.

Not really, it can point to any number of things.
We were discussing that btw, atleast I was.




But again, in real world combat, these MBTs are so advanced that against Russian tanks they probably would not take much fire. Russian tanks simply lacked the technology of their western ounter parts (again, because of money).

Your saying that the US army and the UK army alone could have destroyed the eastern blocks armoured force?
Thats a BIIIIG claim.



It can be depending on how it is configured.

But is it AS standard as heavily armed or armoured?


Both, actually. Again, there are some specific areas where Russia may have/be more advanced. But they are few and far between. On the whole, they were and are well behind.

Thats an opinion, the US was ahead in many areas but not ALL or near ALL, they where equal on many fronts.



No, actually I do not remember it. In any case US sensory, targeting, and tracking systems are more advanced then Russias, and thus, our missles are better.

Are you sure?
Or is that just the opinion that YOU have...
From what I read it showed the two where almost identical.



.
Give me a break man. Something is better because it has more parts that are better. The best athletes are the best combination of size, speed, strength, agility, acceleration, and coordination. You wouldn't say Micheal Jordan had the most parts of his game that were better, you'd say he was the best shooting guard to ever play basket ball.

So are you saying the M-16 is better than the SA-80?
Or the chalanger is not as good as the M-1?


The fact that he had amazing size, speed, and jumping ability etc were why he was the best.

Bottom line, if you are a pilot in the cold war, do want to be flying US aircraft into combat against Russian aircraft, or Russian against American?

That depends on what aircraft now doesnt it?


Do you want to be in an Ohio or Typhoon?

Depends on the crew, but I'd say ohio, but this isnt a RUSSIA VS THE US thread.



Do you want to be in an M-1 or a T-whatever?

B-2 or blackjack?

I think you get the point.

I dont think you get the point, this isnt about which country was about, it was simply about that russia managed to maintain a good level of tech with a low budget.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
lol Iran a superpower ha-ha what is this world coming to...
I would say Iran's military could be taken down with about 20 drunk Texans and a couple of good hound dogs.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Mad man. You need to step down of the Idea that russian equipment is just as expensive as the US. The Soviet Union spended less but they made up for it in price. Scientific research was cheaper because of the Communistic payment system of the scientists. Materials didnt need to bring a profit etc etc. If the Soviet union had to pay as much as the US did then you would see similair expendentures.

Currently everything in Russia is still cheaper but scientists, materials etc etc are already allot more expensive than they used to be. So currently there really is a gap between the Russians and the US but not enough to stop Russia making good millitairy hardware like the AN94, S400 and the latest fulcrum, flanker versions which are all on par with the US equipment. In some areas behind but also some ahead.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeTex
lol Iran a superpower ha-ha what is this world coming to...
I would say Iran's military could be taken down with about 20 drunk Texans and a couple of good hound dogs.


Lets not forget that Iran (Persia) was a superpower for almost 1000 years.
Persia lost only 8 battles and 5 invasions from 559 B.C. till today. I think if Arabs did not conquered Persia, the Persians still were a superpower. That's because Persia was the centre of Science, trade, culture, democracy, wealth etc... for almost 1000 years.

According some historians they were in power for more than 1000 years. After the Arab invasion Persia was not allowed to have a strong army like the Germans after WWI.

Today USA is the superpower and believe me, USA will remain the superpower for at least the next 500 years.

BTW, the Persian conquest for those who are interrested:

    Alexanders conquest in 330 BC
    Arab conquest in 637 AC
    Mongol conquest in 1219 AC
    Afghan conquest in 1722 AC
    Allied invasion in 1941 AC



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I dont think the US will remain the superpower for 500 years. These days rise and falls of civilizations seem to go much faster.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I dont think the US will remain the superpower for 500 years. These days rise and falls of civilizations seem to go much faster.



How much more powerful can a country be, i mean nuclear armed countrys can pretty much destroy earth, there cant posssibly be more powerful than that, unless i guess some technologhy is invented to totally obsolete nukes somehow.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
There are more things than just nukes. You need a capable millitairy in general and a good economy. Theres no problem with the US millitairy however the huge deficts are.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aria
Lets not forget that Iran (Persia) was a superpower for almost 1000 years.


Iran was a superpower after the Arab conquest at times e.g. Safavid Iran under Shah Abbas, Afsharid Iran under Nader Shah.

You also forget that there was a significant period of Seleucid rule between the fall of the Achaemenids and the emergence of the Arsacids.



Persia lost only 8 battles and 5 invasions from 559 B.C. till today. I think if Arabs did not conquered Persia, the Persians still were a superpower. That's because Persia was the centre of Science, trade, culture, democracy, wealth etc... for almost 1000 years.


Hamvatan, I would advise you to stop the Arab fixation. It's no better than some people blaming the Jews for their problems. If Iran is not doing well it is the fault of Iranians, not Arabs. Plenty of other countries have recovered from worse. Besides, the Mongol and Timurid invasions of Iran were much much worse for Iran than the Arab conquest.

There are also factual inaccuracies. There have been more conquests of Iran. You forgot the Seljuks, the Ghaznavids, the Aq Qoyunlu and the Timurids, for example. Claiming that Iran has only lost 8 battles is laughable. It's much much more. Iran lost more than 8 battles only in the nineteenth century.

You say Iran was the centre of democracy?! Are you kidding me?



According some historians they were in power for more than 1000 years. After the Arab invasion Persia was not allowed to have a strong army like the Germans after WWI.


Arab rule did not last for very long (much much less than in Spain for example). It was only about couple of centuries. Even before then, the Abbassid Caliphate was highly influenced by and practically run by Iranians having been put into power by the Iranian Abu Muslim. After about a century, Arab rule was nominal. The Iranian Buyids completely ejected the Arabs and took over Baghdad in the 10th century. Even then, about half the population was still Zoroastrian.



Today USA is the superpower and believe me, USA will remain the superpower for at least the next 500 years.


China has historically been the strongest country in the world. Within 100 years it will be that again. Whether the US will remain where it is I don't know.

A multipolar world is already emerging where superpower status does not equate to successful power projection (see Iraq).



BTW, the Persian conquest for those who are interrested:


    Alexanders conquest in 330 BC
    Arab conquest in 637 AC
    Mongol conquest in 1219 AC
    Afghan conquest in 1722 AC
    Allied invasion in 1941 AC



See above.




[edit on 5-12-2005 by Kamangir]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Iran ofcourse can not compete with the US directly but they still can give a hard fight which might turn out in a defeat of the US.(they cant suddenly pull out of all theire spec ops and troops around the world)


The US does not need huge numbers to win wars, even the current total of troops that we have in Iraq would be enough to defeat the Iranian military, technology is a great force multiplier. Not to mention the fact that you cant win a war without air superiority.


Yeah, the US military is exceptionally strong. But the current US troop strength in Iraq is insufficient to take Iran, let alone occupy it. Artillery conquers, infantry occupies, as they say.

BTW the Russians won WWII without clear air superiority. Their operational and strategic doctrine did not really rely on airpower.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kamangir

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Iran ofcourse can not compete with the US directly but they still can give a hard fight which might turn out in a defeat of the US.(they cant suddenly pull out of all theire spec ops and troops around the world)


The US does not need huge numbers to win wars, even the current total of troops that we have in Iraq would be enough to defeat the Iranian military, technology is a great force multiplier. Not to mention the fact that you cant win a war without air superiority.


Yeah, the US military is exceptionally strong. But the current US troop strength in Iraq is insufficient to take Iran, let alone occupy it. Artillery conquers, infantry occupies, as they say.

BTW the Russians won WWII without clear air superiority. Their operational and strategic doctrine did not really rely on airpower.



The US couldnt occupy Iran with martial law type scenario , but they could certainly (easily) destroy all there major military muscle, and they could certainly hold large parcels of land area (low population areas).


BTW the Russians won there side of WW2 majorly because of US supplied equipment.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Iran's military is nowhere near as strong as the US's. Whether Iran is catching up technologically I think that's true for most things (e.g. missiles, nuclear, tanks, artillery, air defence, infantry equipment) and false for others (e.g. air power, high-tech weapons like lasers). Frankly, I suspect that much of the US defence budget is wasted.

But I think that's really the wrong question to ask. Iran only needs to improve so that the costs of invading Iran outweigh the benefits. By developing military, as Iran now is, the costs are rising every day and, arguably, even today it would not be worth the US invading. Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran.

I think military spending doesn't reveal the whole picture. Once technology has been researched, it can be "acquired" for a fraction of the cost. The cost of Iran's acquisition of certain Russian and US technology is much less than when it was first developed by those states. Besides, there are many other force multipliers, e.g. terrain, doctrine, morale, logistics.

I don't think the CIA has much of a clue about Iranian military spending to be honest. Their intelligence penetration of Iran is woeful. Until a couple of years ago, the CIA put Iranian spending at around $10 billion but then they halved it out of the blue. That's simply incredulous if you consider Iran's current security situation. Personally, I think Iranian spending is around $12 - 13 billion with an addition $1 - 2 billion on military R&D not covered by the main budget. If half of that was spent on Russian combat aircraft and air defence for three years, the US would never seriously consider attacking Iran.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join