I would love to see the assumptions behind this simulation.

Forget the fact that a shoulder fired missile, no matter how good is useless against targets over 10,000 feet. At that altitude they run out of fuel and kinetic energy and cannot maneuver to hit aircraft.

And, forget the fact that US airstrikes never stray below that altitude due to GPS targeting (and do not give me any of that jamming garbage. It does not work. Military GPS bombs can use encrypted frequencies, and have perfected their trajectory well before a jammer can really do anything).

A really brazen radar operator would dare turn it on. Tomahawks now have loitering capabilities to end such courage very quickly. Assuming one stayed active enough to target anything (forget about identifying it), having a high altitude and a maneuverable aircraft is really all a well trained US pilot needs. If it is radar guided, it will mean an immediate countershot against the transmitter, and depending on desire, against the missile itself. Then you have the usual countermeasures like chaff and flares, but those really would not be needed. Russian missiles have not been able to shoot down US front line aircraft with any reliability since early Vietnam. The Israelis proved that many times over, along with US pilots over Iraq and the Balkans.


Assuming an Iranian pilot still had a runway to take off from, he would not likely fare well. He would not want to use his radar if he is smart, so vectoring to intercept would require ground control, if he is lucky enough to still have it. For him to get within firing range, he would likely have to navigate a gauntlet of beyond line of site missiles from the waiting US aircraft. Assuming he survives that, it comes down to good ol' dogfighting. He will be outnumbered 3 to 1 against superior aircraft with Pilots that receive ten times the flight hours he does.

This is not a recipe for success.

There is no doubt that in a full on air war the US might lose a few Aircraft. Even as the Iraqis flooded the skies with Russian missiles in '91, they were able to hit a few aircraft. But all of that has changed since US pilots can drop from high altitude and leave immediately. That said, there is still room for the odd lucky shot.

Last time the US and Iran came to blows the US destroyed half the Iranian Navy in a single afternoon. Since that time the US military has advanced at a faster pace then Iran has.

In a conventional War Iran like most countries has no chance against the US. The US could cripple their military and economy if they wanted and there is really nothing Iran could do about that. Coventional wars like that are the US militaries bread and butter.

Occupation would be a different matter I be the first to tell you that.

Irans best strategy IMO would be use terrorist tactics in Iraq, Afghanistan since they have the abililty to make things much worse there, Perhaps even terrorist attacks on US soil and using that as a deterent to attack.

That or develop their own nuclear weapons, theres a reason no nuclear nations have been invaded or attacked by other nuclear powers.

But taking the US military head on in with their military They are deluding themselves.

******BREAKING NEWS*************BREAKING NEWS*******

This just in. Some details of how Iran repelled a simulated invasion.
In an unprecedented interview, Revolutionary Guard top general Ali Reza Asquari addressed the fact that Iran did indeed repel a simulated attack by US Forces.

"I as well as my top field leaders met in the (Iran's) Military Headquarters Earlier this morning. The purpose of this meeting was to lay out a perfect plan to neutralize the military offense of the US. Using the best technology available, Ali Reza Asquari broke out the Play Station 3 to the "oohs and aaahs" of his field personell. Taking a big sip of his unsweetened Iced Tea, and munching down a couple handfuls of Doritos, Ali Reza Asquari fired up the big screen, and launched the game.

"I found that if I left clicked twice, joystick right, joystick up and left, back right click twice, that no American planes, missiles, or rockets could penetrate my Iranian borders. I even managed to get 3 new lives!
I dare you Great Satan to make a move...."

Shouts of ALLAH AKBAR rang out in the room for several minutes.



[edit on 28-3-2007 by lombozo]

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
...Russian Tor missiles were delivered. With these added into the Air Defense system any air attack will suffer fairly heavily.

agreed, I think what was seen in Lebanon on the ground could be seen in Iran in the air (well, Hezbollah did use new Russian anti-tank missiles and was trained by Iranians)...

with the Tor-m1 system it wouldn't amaze me if the iran could
repel helicopter attack. those things fry Cobras and Apatches
before they can get to weapons range. so no.. that
what US forces did in Iraq doesn't work with Iran as it was.

it would be F-22 and B2 all the way.. since Iran doens't
have the capablility to track them.

I don't want to see another Iran thread. Israel and America won't do anything. If there was going to be a war, it would've happened a long time ago. Public support isn't there and neither are the troop levels. A nuclear armed Iran is no more "dangerous" than a nuclear armed Pakistan.

Has anyone considered the moral of our military in considering another war front in Iran? I mean we hear all day and night the Warpigs; "consultants" and generals, but I rarely hear from the grunts on how they will accept another incursion all for a less than moral war.
Consider this: Condemning the ENTIRE religion of Islam (1.5 BILLION Muslims) for the "alleged" acts of 19 razorknife yielding SOBs should have many of you asking yourselves how can this be? Early 1900s the perception of Arabs and MiddleEast was of desert wanderers, magic-carpet riding nomads (you know what I mean-I hope), but how did this so vastly change in 60 years? Why when someone asks, "what do you spontaneously think of when you hear the word: terrorist, the general response is Muslim. Or Muslim, the response is overwhelmingly: terrorist" and so on with words like Islam, Quran, Allah, etc etc etc. If you don't have this reaction to this and are from Western culture, than you're probably not being honest with your sub-conscience. It's not so much your fault as it is the extremely powerful video and print media that shapes and hypnotizes you into what your perception of reality truly is.

Is it a coincidence that Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Iraq are not part of the world bank community??? Could this be why they are labeled the axis of evil---yet justifying US policy as "Fighting Terrorism". I find it troubling that the majority of people in Western states (more so the majority of materialistic and like-minded countries and peoples) do not truly grasp how this World Bank consists of private corporations from each country like our Federal Reserve (NOT A DEPT of GOVERNMENT, but Private Corps like Apple or GE---about as federal as Federal Express!). Then the ability to yield interest on the HUGE loans granted to countries (say for instances publicworks projects like the Three Gorges dam, or Suez Canal; or military loans for wars, etc) gives enormous leverage to the lender over the borrower in just about every aspect of sovereignty. The nation is bonded as the servant to the lender. Imagine on a micro- sized scenario. Your house mortgage is what many of us get up in the morning for (or unfortunately maybe credit cards has you sunk)---but we do it to provide for our livelihoods and families. We must work to get the money to payback the loans PLUS interest borrowed for the house---many of us would go default if interest rates increased---and in actuality many go default even with a constant interest rate (interest hurts at the end of the month!!!). Some will say "but you can make money by borrowing money and paying interest sometimes": true, but is it also not true that the lender will profit no matter what scenario is played out.
Why then is it so hard to understand this mechanism on the Nation-state scale. Dig beneath the surface and ponder serious questions: many of you are afraid to even question such claims, because it would "rock" ideology, philosophy, and even religious understandings which one has been conditioned to trust as truth. The level of contentment is such that the "no-worries" mentality kicks in: "I got the SUV" and "Im going on vacation to Hawaii next month" or "the American Dream", etc; thereby creating an understanding vacuum of reality. Those unwilling to explore and ultimately deny the true reality are destined for the Orwellian condition known as "double-think" (read up on it if unfamiliar).

I could go on and on but I already fear that the length of my post has discouraged many from reading it (our generation of the 15 second sound bite-or byte~not sure). I'd love to hear comments, even if they are to call my claims outlandish or that I am a conspiracy "tin-hat" wearin fool! If factual evidence is used to support claims we can discover the truth together.

No China and Iran for me-then you know the end of times are coming.

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

Thank man, I needed that laugh.

This thread has gone on for five pages? Iran cannot "repel" unrestricted US led air strikes. The best they can hope for is that we handicap ourselves like we did in Vietnam and Serbia.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

There was no B-2 shot down, nor was there ever any USAF/NATO admission of it. Nor did the Serbs ever have any pieces of a B-2 to display.

They claimed to have downed around 140 aircraft, including B-52s, F-4s, and a bunch of every type. USAF admitting losing an F-16, a F-117 and guess what, thats the only kinds of wreckage the Serbs had to display from a downed aircraft.

They did it an A-10 but it made it back to base. They also showed a drop tank from a plane and claimed it was a plane they shot down.