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.

 

Iranian SAM effectiveness?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Well, if Israël and the US use nukes... you won't have to put boots on the ground. The EMP will decimate most of their missiles and the leadership will be killed.


Let's hope to god they don't! Talk about a disproportionate response! Jeebus...


Originally posted by Vitchilo
But how the world would accept another Hiroshima X100?


They wouldn't. Russia and China would go spastic, if not for the Iranians for the huge cloud of toxic muck that would be floating their way. I would even see the Uk severing ties if they just outright nuked Iran without provocation that demands such extreme measures.


Originally posted by Vitchilo
Also, IF Iran have S-300s, will Israëli F-16 pass throught it?


No weapon system is infallable. Whilst the S-300 would add a nice layer to the Iranian AA defence, they would need significant amounts to provide total coverage, unless they use it too protect key sites. Maybe some cruise missiles, or some "assistance" from the Israeli's best buds with their stealthy toys.. Then you have to factor in training and alertness of both Pilots and SAM crew. All these things could allow a Sopwith Camel through the best air defences if the conditions are right...




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm sure Iran's air defense can handle itself well. The problem I see for them is that it's very hard to defend a fixed/obvious target like a reactor site. It's not like you have to go Scud/Tank hunting. Second, I'd expect any air attack to include thorough wild weasel support. Not that jamming is perfect or anything like that, but SAMs do seem to respect a target when it can and does fire back. SAM's seem to be more effective at ambushing aircraft when EW support is not so concentrated. Even if half of the attacking force is downed by SAMs (exagerated), US/Israel would claim success if the reactor goes boom.

Aside from political gambles, if the US/Israel sneak attack Iran and the attack isn't effective, or requires follow-up attacks--then what? If you back off--you look silly. If you don't back off-you have to convince everyone to support further attacks even though you've already failed to some degree.

I think the attacking force would have trouble with the Iranian air force as well. Not that they couldn't be dealt with, but if you have to engage 50 fighters on the way to the target--well that just slows everything down. Every minute over the battlefield is hell from the SAMs. They could just liter the airfields with tomahawk bomblets, but now you've raised the whole scope of things. Iran just might decide to fire conventional missles at Israel in return. Then do you now attack the missle sites?

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, this could get ugly fast. . .



new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join