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 buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia


www.debka.com

DEBKA Reports: Iran buys 250 long-distance Sukhoi fighter-bombers, 20 fuel tankers, from Russia

July 27, 2007, 7:15 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tehran and the Russian Rosoboronexport arms group are about to sign a mammoth arms deal running into tens of billions of dollars for the sale to Tehran of 250 Su-30MKM warplanes and 20 IL-78 MKI fuel tankers. DEBKAfile’s military sources report Iran has stipulated delivery of the first aircraft before the end of 2007.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Iran will receive the first aircraft before the end of the year. It is said that the pilots are already trained. Well if the US attack is not before the end of 08, it could be bad for Israël in a counter-strike against Israël or US bases in Iraq or even the iranians could be able to sink an aircraft carrier with the chinese missiles C-802.

But I know that a lot here will say that the F-22 will wipe them out or that they won't be able even to take off... but eh, well used, it could be a precious weapon.

P.S. Planeman, if you're here, what's your analysis? Or anyone who's a pro in planes could give their impressions.

www.debka.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
For a description of the SU-30, en.wikipedia.org...


Essentially, in the right hands, it could counter about anything the US has in the air.

However, as always, it will come down to whoever gets their AWACS and Jammers in the air first to guide the long range ordnance.

But in a close dogfight... the F22 really isn't meant for it, the SU-30 is.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I'm inclined to reflexively dismiss this as more DEBKA disinfo, but it's also been reported by other sources.

My initial reaction is: good for them.

Perhaps it will be enough to make the US leadership think twice about launching another pointless & self-defeating Persian Gulf war.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I just had an added thought.

All of these aircraft that so strictly rely on their avionics are going to be deemed useless once someone finds an effective way of deploying an EMP.

Billion dollar bricks falling from the sky. Wouldn't that just scare the pants off every military on earth.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Based on the results so far about the Red Flag exercises involving the F-22, the Iranians are going to be pissed about buying something that they will lose.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Yes that is right, every single plane will be shot down before it fires a a signle shot, and whatever few shots they do fire will all miss right?? Just like magic. Hundreds of missles and thousands of bullets will run right into a magic forcefield that protects ALL American assets, and not a signle bit of damage will be done. But every single one of their units will go down and be destroyed.

That is what we call wishful thinking, and fantasy war strategy. All the technology and training in the world cannot prevent at least semi-significant casualties. I doubt they will lsoe them all. No doubt they will lose many, and maybe more so than US will, but the US will also lose quite alot.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Yes that is right, every single plane will be shot down before it fires a a signle shot, and whatever few shots they do fire will all miss right?? Just like magic. Hundreds of missles and thousands of bullets will run right into a magic forcefield that protects ALL American assets, and not a signle bit of damage will be done. But every single one of their units will go down and be destroyed.

That is what we call wishful thinking, and fantasy war strategy. All the technology and training in the world cannot prevent at least semi-significant casualties. I doubt they will lsoe them all. No doubt they will lose many, and maybe more so than US will, but the US will also lose quite alot.


Well you can see the results yourself where the F-22 has taken on F-15s, F-18s, F-16s, MIG 29s, and ironically tested against the Su30s. The ratio kill was 144 to 0. Outnumbered 4 to 1 during the exercises.

Are the Iranians willing to pay that much just to try to get one fighter down?

[edit on 27-7-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
It looks like both sides are getting as much arsenal as they
can get their hands on. So I'm pretty sure Iran is not going to
buy all these crafts for an air show. They will probably launch
and attack soon.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Perhaps it will be enough to make the US leadership think twice about launching another pointless & self-defeating Persian Gulf war.


Or perhaps they will try to use this as a reason why we need to go in before they get the planes?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I just had an added thought.

All of these aircraft that so strictly rely on their avionics are going to be deemed useless once someone finds an effective way of deploying an EMP.

Billion dollar bricks falling from the sky. Wouldn't that just scare the pants off every military on earth.


I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that all of the electrical components are very well shielded in our fighters and bombers... now, find a way to take out all of our communication and positioning satellites and we have a really big problem.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'm not too convinced that the F-22 is going to magically roll over 250 Su-30's operating over their own territory without taking any losses - especially considering how few F-22's are in squadron service at this point, and their low rate of production.

Sounds like a fantasy to me


Iraq hasn't been enough to convince our armchair toughguys that we're not omnipotent and invulnerable - I wonder what it's going to take. A CVN sitting on the bottom of the Gulf with a few thousand young sailors?




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
But in a close dogfight... the F22 really isn't meant for it, the SU-30 is.


I thought the Raptor was the most advanced war fighter to date. I knew that there were comparable fighters out there, but didn't think they stacked up as well. I guess it was meant more for various mission types and the SU-30 was built strictly for dogfighting?

The SU-30 isn't stealth is it? Wouldn't this give a slight advantage? Maybe not in dogfighting, but overall? You'd have to have line-of-sight to get past the stealth advantage wouldn't you?

[edit on 27-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm not too convinced that the F-22 is going to magically roll over 250 Su-30's operating over their own territory without taking any losses - especially considering how few F-22's are in squadron service at this point, and their low rate of production.

Sounds like a fantasy to me


Iraq hasn't been enough to convince our armchair toughguys that we're not omnipotent and invulnerable - I wonder what it's going to take. A CVN sitting on the bottom of the Gulf with a few thousand young sailors?



If the goal is just to beat the crap out of Iran, I think those armchair tough guys might be right. If you remember correctly, the US and it's few allies pretty much rolled over the Iraqi military. The problems arose after they tried to basically settle down and have their military act as police officers. Fighting insurgents isn't nearly the same as fighting an actual military force.

That CVN sitting on the bottom of the Gulf is probably what's going to the two countries fighting in the first place.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Xerimethius]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted 2 days ago


but seriously - thats a huge amount of ariframes.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This is a news article though. A thread on the same topic can exist both as a news
article and on the general site.



Now, as for my thoughts on this, well even though these planes probably would'nt pose to
much of a problem to the USAF or military if for some reason we did attack Iran in any way,
I think they're meant for fighting the IAF/IDF and regional Air Forces/militaries
rather than American or other Western fighters/militaries.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Actually when it comes to modern fighting machinery it isnt so much "magic" as another poster eluded to that brings opposing forces down, its technology. The SU-30 is a capable craft in the right hands for sure, but who has more experience fighting? The Iranians or the US?

Thats what many fail to realize is that even if all things were equal you have to give the Amricans and Israeli's the advantage. Why? Because they are battle tested. A lot of countries out there are becoming better equipped militarily but all the practice in the world doesnt make you good...you have to play the game. The Israelis are always fighting and the Americans are always fighting thusfore staying on top of their respective games. There are some countries out there who have a whole generation of military personnel that hasnt even seen conflict. How do you think they will do when one breaks out?

Iran: Bring it on.
Russia: If you didnt have nukes you could get it too. The US isnt Afghanistan or Chechen rebels. When is the last time you guys have been involved in a major conflict?

Just because you're all dressed up doesnt mean you're ready to go.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
^princeofpeace,

Well sounds macho and all, but what you write is pretty well trashed by Iraq.

The whole point of that monumental strategic mistake was that Rumsfeld thought he could fight a war on the cheap. All those neat toys were going to just shock the Iraqis into submission--shock and awe, yadda yadda--and then they'd throw flowers in our path, not IEDs.

War is not a game, like tennis, where you're going to somehow improve by just doing more of it.

Iraq has bogged us down militarily, is grinding down the army in the desert sands, shot our rep with the world, and ignited huge dissension at home. There's no end in sight, and we're losing it even better than ever.

So just where is all the bluster coming from? We're the best military in the world and, after being there longer than all of WWII, we can't subdue a small, third-rate country that had been bled dry by a regional war and nearly a decade's worth of economic sanctions?

Tech Schmek.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Iraq hasn't been enough to convince our armchair toughguys that we're not omnipotent and invulnerable - I wonder what it's going to take. A CVN sitting on the bottom of the Gulf with a few thousand young sailors?


Don't confuse the "loss" later during the occupation with the the actual "battle" going into Iraq. The US wouldn't have much of a problem rolling over Iran's military (from virtually every direction), it's then occupying Iran in the aftermath that's a different reality to be feared.



Originally posted by gottago
^princeofpeace,
Well sounds macho and all, but what you write is pretty well trashed by Iraq.

The whole point of that monumental strategic mistake was that Rumsfeld thought he could fight a war on the cheap. All those neat toys were going to just shock the Iraqis into submission--shock and awe, yadda yadda--and then they'd throw flowers in our path, not IEDs.


Incorrect. Rumsfeld was right with the invasion force capability: they did it and set unprecidented new military benchmarks. I call it showing off. But the force size was improper for the resulting occupation. They showed off what a minimal sized force could do to a military. Now that the occupation isn't going so well that doesn't mean our military is crap. That's a wild fallacy that seems to be thrown around quite often. Dont confuse military victories with civil/imperial-occupation losses.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Few things to clarify here:

1: the Iraqi army`s morale was very very poor because they needed to fight for a dictator...

2: Since when did the US fought against a nation who is as modern as Iran is??? Not in the past 35 years and dont bring up the 1991 gulf war because the Iraqi army didnt used their potential and they used epuipment who was even substandard off the equipment they derived from. (like the T 72 tank wich the Iraqi`s made an even weaker poorer version of it) They treated their "Babylon" tanks like it was stationary attilery and fled with their airforce`s migs and mil`s towards Iran.....

On topic: This purchase off these aircraft mark a new era for the Iranian airforce who end up being the local rulers off the airspace and not the Americans anymore.....




new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join