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.

 

Iran repels simulated air attack in war games???

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianGlasnost
I don't think patriotism overrides it, it is not an absolute

it may help, but not to the point of making a 2years conscript the quality of a career soldier

patriotism did not save the Iraqi army when the US invaded



Was the Iraqi leadership like Iran's current leadership?

Also Iraqi army lost tank battles due to lack of technology which if it had it would have done better and the T-72M1A was pathetic. They lacked any good infantry weapons, Iran has these. Iraqi airdefense was poor. Also Iran's terrain is much different from Iraqs.

What about in the times of WW1, weren't both armies using conscription? Both fought very well.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by otester]




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I'm not sure how well a conscripted Iranian would fight vs a professional volunteer soldier but their motivation would be increased somewhat from how they have viewed the Iraqi experience. Plus I think with Iran soldiers / insurgents / resistance are much more likely to follow the kind of strategy and tactics employed in Afghanistan than in say Iraq. The terrain allows for more guerilla style operations and the sheer size of the country also ensures any invading force simply cannot control all sectors at all times.

The professional / volunteer invader is also likely to somewhat worn down from recent experience rather than freshly trained up due to the existing committments in Iraq and Afghanistan. This level of degradation may prove to be a factor.

On top of this the new conplan includes actions for US Marines such as 'an opposed ship to shore landing without establishing a beach head'. That sure sounds risky and against general military principle.

It is also starting to look that a US led attack on Iran will NOT be a 3rd Front but actually a convergence of the two existing fronts.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
All indications are that the modern Iranian military is far better led, trained, and most importantly motivated than the Iraqi military in 2003. Remember that in 2003 we were facing an army that had been seriously compromised by the beating it recieved in 1991, a dozen years of sanctions, and an air campaign against it's air defenses that never really stopped.

Iran is facing none of these things, and has spent the last decades aggressively modernizing and training it's forces.

Iran is no Iraq.

"Repel" a US air attack? Doubtful.
But they can sure as hell make it costly for us.

Naval forces face greater threats - Iran has no blue water navy, but they have a huge variety of small combatants that will use innovative tactics and probably suicide attacks. They also have some very modern Kilo SSK's and an interesting minisub fleet.

On the ground - forget about it.
The US is simply in no position to launch a ground invasion.

No doubt US forces have a major qualitative edge, especially in terms of equipment, but the Iranians are going to fight, and they are likely to be prepared for an extensive guerilla campaign behind any US US offensive line. US forces will have a hell of a time protecting their supply lines, a problem we saw against a far inferior force to Iran's in 2003.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   


"Repel" a US air attack? Doubtful.


Iranian Air Defense - Russian stuff given to em.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by otester:


Ofcourse it's a factor, just depends whether the enemy has the right the equipment to detect stealth, in this case they do.


So you're telling me Iran has the capability to detect United States B2 Stealth bombers? Please, inform the world what equipment the Iranians are going to use to detect United States Airforce stealth aircrafts, then shoot them out of the sky with.

If you're assuming that the Russians perfected this technology, then glady sold/gave the Iranians the pieces to fend off USAF stealth aircraft in a proxy war, think again.

I think some of you here overestimate Iran's capability to fend off United States airpower due to your personal dislike right now for the American Goverment.

I believe realistically, that USAF will be able to knock out Irans command and control centers and other opportunistic targets, and clear the way for a successful Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear ambitions with minnimal losses, if any.

United States is a hyper power, like it or not. American boots are stretched, but the USAF is business as usual, and 100% ready for any task given to them.

United States knows how to use its airpower in a strategic bombing campaign, SAM sites or not. If this scenario plays out, I'll be the first to say "Told you so."



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I do believe you are over-estimating the B2 and F117's stealth capability.

Both aircraft are not completley stealth, though they don't show a sharp outline of an aircraft on radar, they do in fact show a fuzzy image of it.

A fuzzy image is all it takes. AAA fire from the gound doesnt need a lock to take down an aircraft, and considering the computer system on both the B2 and the F117 cannot compensate for battle damage tells me that it only takes one round of AAA to take down either of those aircraft.

The purpose of the radar deflection and thermal deflection on the American stealth aircraft is to ensure against missile locks. They do not prevent detection, nor tracking of the aircrafts location. Effectively, stealth technology as it is to date cannot defend against AAA fire. Something of which the Iranians have an ample amount of.

I would think again before placing any trust in stealth technology's ability to defend the aircraft. If anything, the radar image simply tells them that it's a high priority target for their AAA systems to fire at.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Personally Ive got no beef about it, but from tests and wargames that have been run Iran had a capability to cause medium / heavy losses on israeli and US aircraft assaults. I don't doubt at all that Iran's C&C network will be thoroughly messed up by an assault. However, I do doubt any claim of 'minimal if any losses' on the attackers part.

PLus most of the tests and wargames sims I've seen have not taken the new Tor system in account. And I'm talking purely air defense vs air assault. Not air to air.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
A fuzzy image is all it takes. AAA fire from the gound doesnt need a lock to take down an aircraft, and considering the computer system on both the B2 and the F117 cannot compensate for battle damage tells me that it only takes one round of AAA to take down either of those aircraft.

The purpose of the radar deflection and thermal deflection on the American stealth aircraft is to ensure against missile locks. They do not prevent detection, nor tracking of the aircrafts location. Effectively, stealth technology as it is to date cannot defend against AAA fire. Something of which the Iranians have an ample amount of.

I would think again before placing any trust in stealth technology's ability to defend the aircraft. If anything, the radar image simply tells them that it's a high priority target for their AAA systems to fire at.


If the ground radar is on....... it's going to get HARM'ed in a bad way. It won't take long till radar operators decide not to flip the on switch on when they know they are sending a homing beacon to their doorstep
www.fas.org...

As for the radar cross section of Stealth concepts, Please stop making it sound as if it's hardly worth having. Take a look at this site to see what it's all about.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Stealth planes have a cross section so small as to not be deteted by radar unless the radar is tracking objects the size of large birds. Even then, the radar operators would have a ton of objects on screen and a HARM coming at them.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

So you're telling me Iran has the capability to detect United States B2 Stealth bombers? Please, inform the world what equipment the Iranians are going to use to detect United States Airforce stealth aircrafts, then shoot them out of the sky with.

If you're assuming that the Russians perfected this technology, then glady sold/gave the Iranians the pieces to fend off USAF stealth aircraft in a proxy war, think again.


Kolchuga, made my Ukraine, a few other countries have it as well apart from Iran.


If the ground radar is on....... it's going to get HARM'ed in a bad way. It won't take long till radar operators decide not to flip the on switch on when they know they are sending a homing beacon to their doorstep
www.fas.org...


Range of 48km upto 90km max.



As for the radar cross section of Stealth concepts, Please stop making it sound as if it's hardly worth having. Take a look at this site to see what it's all about.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Stealth planes have a cross section so small as to not be deteted by radar unless the radar is tracking objects the size of large birds. Even then, the radar operators would have a ton of objects on screen and a HARM coming at them.


Kolchuga goes for the engines, aircraft doesn't know it's being tracked and cannot be countered.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by otester]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

. That Kolchuga can detect US stealth aircraft by their radio and radar emissions. Whilst technically possible, no stealth aircraft radiate when in battle, so this mode of operation is militarily irrelevant.
. Kolchuga is sufficiently sensitive to detect US stealth aircraft from unconventional sources of RF emissions, including radiation from exhaust trails and electromagnetic interference from the engine. (Technically the power levels of these sources are likely to be so small, if at all, that there would be insufficient energy for Kolchuga to measure these effects at one site, let alone the two or more required for triangulation. They would also be almost impossible to distinguish for normal background RF noise and would not appear like the conventional emissions types Kolchuga is designed to receive and analyse).

Kolchuga sensor

Sorry, while a neat piece of technology, it is not proven to work against stealth, let alone that Iran possess it.

BTW, still looking for that supporting links for your claim of Iran being able to turn "Grey" the airspace above Iran, rendering US planes blind. This is the second request. Three strikes and your out.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by pavil]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Looking over the event's of 1999 alone, 2 stealths were shot down.
One was an F117A, and the other a B2.

Both of these were brought down by SA3's, a radar tracking anti air missile defense system, and rather dated at that.

Considering they can take down your current stealth technology... I wonder what else has been developed since 1999?


Again, most people grossly overrate the stealth's ability to conceal itself.
It's not really stealth at all, it just attempts to confuse the radar.
You still know exactly where it is, and exactly where to aim.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

BTW, still looking for that supporting links for your claim of Iran being able to turn "Grey" the airspace above Iran, rendering US planes blind. This is the second request. Three strikes and your out.


Already said before that I am working on it.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Looking over the event's of 1999 alone, 2 stealths were shot down.
One was an F117A, and the other a B2.

Both of these were brought down by SA3's, a radar tracking anti air missile defense system, and rather dated at that.

Considering they can take down your current stealth technology... I wonder what else has been developed since 1999?



Again proof is required for you claim on the B-2 being shot down. Yes a f117a was shot down, mainly by using poor tactics (flying the same attack route repetatively without changing it). No one know's for sure what brought down the F117, please provide proof that it was a SA3. The F117 used older stealth concepts, the B2 had the benefit of larger computers to work on better aspects of stealth.

I am not claiming stealth planes are 100% successful, but they are inifinitely harder to detect than most military aircraft. They are not used in a vaccuum as well, all the other tricks of the airforce are happeing at the same time on the battlefield;jamming radars, destroying radars and command centers, false bogies, feints, UCAV's even giving false commands to the enemy forces. All of that makes for a very disjointed defensive position.

Can a stealth plane be shot down? Sure given near ideal conditions. The USAF will hit a target in multiple ways to maximize the disorientation they can do. In an air campaign, Iran loses control of it's airspace in a matter of days. After that things are sitting ducks. Their would be US aircraft shot down, but not in numbers to change the outcome.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I am not claiming stealth planes are 100% successful, but they are inifinitely harder to detect than most military aircraft.


Whilst not backing up the other guys claims, I think youself claiming that Stealth aircraft ar "infinitely" harder to detect is a bit far fetched.

Harder, yes, but not infinitely. In fact, most modern industrial nations have several means to detect something like the B-2 quite easily, the problem lies turning the detection into viable targetting data for your AA battery's.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Whilst not backing up the other guys claims, I think youself claiming that Stealth aircraft ar "infinitely" harder to detect is a bit far fetched.

Harder, yes, but not infinitely. In fact, most modern industrial nations have several means to detect something like the B-2 quite easily, the problem lies turning the detection into viable targetting data for your AA battery's.


Perhaps a poor choice of an adjective there. Stealth are still much harder to find than a regular non stealth military aircraft.

The avg radar cross section of a modern non stealth bomber (B-1) is about 121ft (11x11ft)
The avg radar cross section of the B-2 is about 0.0004 ft (.02 x.02ft) or about 30,250 times smaller than the B-1 if I did my math correctly.

I'll put it simply to the naysayers of stealth out there:
You are about to fly over enemy territory with your choice of bomber at a normal bombing run altitude, A B52, aB1 or a B2. There are Sam Sites and AAA all around your path and target, which Plane would you pick?

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   


but they are inifinitely harder to detect than most military aircraft.


Most jets are made for pure performance, not taking very much stealthyness into account.


www.cnn.com...

Is it really worth risking a plane thats worth as much as a carrier?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I don't disagree that stealth aircraft are harder to shoot down, I'm just saying it's far from improbable.

As for that B2 information you wanted...
www.aeronautics.ru...
That's not the original source I read from before, but it's the same event.

You already know about the F117 so I don't need to post that.

I'll keep looking for the original source, it clearly stated that both events were caused by SA3 Sam Sites... problem is I clean my history and cache regularly... so it's not in my history list any more.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
As for that B2 information you wanted...
www.aeronautics.ru...
That's not the original source I read from before, but it's the same event.



Are you basing your claims on this link and the original source when you can not find any supporting links elsewhere on the web? Very sketchy report especially when all B-2's are present and accounted for. It's not like we have a ton of them and could hide a loss. B ut we are getting far off topic. Are they a cost effective solution, not really sure, as you get alot of F-16's for the pricetag of one B-2. However contrary to your link, not a single B-2 has been shot down



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
Think they could repel an attack from isreali? heh What a crock. Iraq had a bigger army no?


Size isn't everything and if you honeslty think 2003 Iraq is in anyway comparable to 2007 Iran then you are sadly mistaken.



I do know that Iran is far from perfect. There a a lot of problems Iranian society needs to deal with. There will have to be a solution.

The current US attack will be met by the following:


Iran


Tehran the city you are thinking of nuking






You are against this -

Maybe the words of this one make better secse?



And for a nice photo gallery of some of the hardware seen before


I am not claiming that Iran has a chance of wining. Just consider how much damage could US and Israel take and how much damage are you actually prepared to take?

Ok if you are still interested here are some videos of some the airdefence systems in operation( These are only Irans Army kit):



These videos are from the latest Army and Navy practices. The Iranian Army is completey seperate to IRGC. Please note that these are the "conscripts" some of you have talked about. Also see if you can notice some of the planes some of you said are not flying anymore flying?


These are video link. I have tried to explain the content by bullet points before each link.



1)Test of land ot land and land to sea missiles( 100s of kilometers range)

2)Electronics and signals warfare ( in 16 states of iran)

3)Mobile communications system under assumption of total communication loss
www.youtube.com...


Intercept unit practice and anti air defence systems tests by Iranian Army
www.youtube.com...

More air defence and intrusion detection and combat practice

detection and intelligence units practice

flying under radar for hours

simultaniuse Missle defence and electronics intruption techniques

engaging enemy plane without using the central radar

www.youtube.com...



Sea and under sea section of the operations, Iranian Navy and marines in operation


www.youtube.com...





*Note this list is by no means inclusive. The IRGC which is Irans second parallel army designed for asymetrical warfare is not featured hear greatly.

**Sorry if you have seen some of these links before. I just thought it is important for people to know all the facts and not only what they think they know!

***I know that the guys on the dirtbikes are funny looking. But I do hope you don't get to see how usefull they actually are in Iranian train for rapid strike and exit attacks.



I hope for a Federal Republic of Iran through peacfull means




[edit on 1-3-2007 by zurvan]

[edit on 1-3-2007 by zurvan]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Are you basing your claims on this link and the original source when you can not find any supporting links elsewhere on the web? Very sketchy report especially when all B-2's are present and accounted for. It's not like we have a ton of them and could hide a loss. B ut we are getting far off topic. Are they a cost effective solution, not really sure, as you get alot of F-16's for the pricetag of one B-2. However contrary to your link, not a single B-2 has been shot down


Relax my friend. There are many more sources on the matter. It's covered in the NATO admitted losses of the year of 1999, I just can't find the exact page at the moment.

It's not sketchy at all, and if you want to look yourself, please do, you'll find the same information repeated again and again.


But seriously man. Don't demand a source, and then start claiming that all the sources are bogus.

Ignorance is the refusal to change your oppinion on a subject regardless of the evidence presented. Don't become ignorant like so many others... not you too... I have to deal with people like that every day, and it's starting to take it's toll. I don't need you added to the list of people I can't take seriously, I actually enjoy arguing with you. If you become ignorant like so many others, our arguments cant be taken seriously.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by johnsky]



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join