It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:48 PM

If you remember correctly, the US and it's few allies pretty much rolled over the Iraqi military.

If you remember correctly, Iraq was a ghetto when the US invaded. Why? Well, 12 years of hard sanctions and bombing. Hell, they didn't had paper back then, PAPER. A journalist went there in the 90s, in the hotel he was in, he received his bill on the back of an old government letter. When you don't have paper, how can you have motivated troops and a well equiped army to fight an invader?

Granted that the US military kick ass. But eh, even if you were this good, now, it's over. The troops are angry at the government, most troops served too much time in the middle-east, they are sick and tired, thanks to the DU and 4-5 tours. But to get another war started, you'll need another false-flag operation with probably nukes or a gulf of tonkin 2 live on national TV.

You could bomb them, but invade them, forget it unless a draft, which would create riots. I guess that if Iran retaliate in any ``serious`` way, they will be nuked.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:53 PM

Iranian pilots have gained lots of experience during the Iran/Iraq war, and if you can fly a F-14 you probably as well fly a fly-by wire flanker-c.But still with training they cant compete with the israeli veterans..
But really 250 is a whole lot! thats more then the russian and Indian fleet combined[although the latter could eventually produce the same amount]
To gain air superiority the US have to deploy at least 62 raptors[if they can take 4 targets at the same time]somewhere in the ME.
And since this su-30 has a range of 8000km[with refuelling] those raptors better be at a safe place[if on the ground]. And i bet there are some wacko iranians who only need half of the fuel and twice the arms if they have kamikazi intentions..
250 of those #ers would mean iranian air superiority in the me unless raptors are deployed somewhere in Turkey or so, lets not forget the iranian's arsenal of missiles

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:58 PM
Iraq's (old) military is completely destroyed. Fighting insurgents is a different matter altogether. I dont think anyone is talking about the US duplicating in Iran the same thing we did in Iraq. Regime change is not on the order so the war would be different. The talk is of eliminating Irans nuclear program.

Everyone is talking about Iranian military equipment yadda, yadda, yadda. Well that stuiff will be destroyed no doubt and if we dont put soldiers on the ground there then how are they going to be the next "Iraq" for us?

Also, if the US had put in 500,000 soldiers initally as some military commanders wanted to do, Iraq would be a different siutation so lets not pretend the US couldnt win in Iraq. We already have as far as changing the regime and destroying and rebuilding the military. Fighting insurgent battles will take a long time i dont care what kind of military you have.

There is a big difference in not being able to win and not really "trying" to win and im afraid the US just didnt put more enough into it with Iraq. The same can be said for Israel's skirmish with Hezbollah last summer. They could have won and won by attrition but its the leadership that holds back.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by princeofpeace]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:22 PM

Point being, the US military didn't get their asses handed to them by the Iraqi military, which is what people are saying when defending Iran's military. "LOL IRAQ BEAT AMERICA SO IRAN WILL TOO!" Comparing an insurgency to an actual military force is stupid, especially when there are actual targets to....well, target.

If there is another false flag operation (which according to everyone in the world is easier to initiate than microwaving popcorn), everyone will (once again) sign up for a tour of duty (or another one, if they're already on one).

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:32 PM

well said. And if it were not for politics, i am sure the US would have originally gone in with way more troops and aggression from the beginning.
For Iran's fighters... First strike takes out communications, power, air bases etc.. who's to say a meaningful number of those fighters would even get into the air? Also, Iran needs to deal with keeping citizens for uprising on the ground. US carriers and international bases don’t have to deal with that. If Iran attacked first, retaliation would come internationally( Saudi aribia, UAE, Egypt, britian, isreal, south korea, other European nations), not just from the US alone. Bottom line, Iran doesn’t stand a chance. At best, they would get a nice good hit if they did a surprise attack first then they would brag about it the whole way as their country gets turned into a wasteland by international forces.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:57 PM
i really dont blame them. if i was leader of iran and i knew that the USA was coming after my country id stock up on everything and anything i could get my hands on.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:55 PM
If they would just allow a completely transparant nuclear program the purchase of all those planes would be unnecessary and they could save lots of money. But hey, if they wanna play that game then let them. We'll just end up destroying them anyway.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:10 PM
Ah to hear the armchair generals go back and forth.

Before I wade into this........ *Puts on asbestos suit and hip waders*

Couple of points:

The Su-30 MkM, MKI et al shows a max flight range of 3000 km. However, that is not combat radius. Does anybody have those specs?

The Su-30 is very manuverable. However, based on my own opinion, repeated threads here on ATS etc debating this issue, and having seen an impressive Su-27 (and its infinte number of variants) flight demonstration, remian convinced that as cool and impressive "super agility" is, it remains to be seen if it is meaningfull in combat. It sure sells planes at airshows, but thats about it. I do not care how manuverable you are if you are fighting a BVR battle with aircraft (stealthy or not) that have excellent C3I (aka AWACS) support you are not going to win.

The USAF has been invincible in recent actions. Yes they have been up against third rate airforces. However, they also have a well trained, equipped, and led force that would no doubt mop the floor with the Iranian AF, expensive toys or not. Having seen, and participated in these threads since my start here on ATS, one thing is always constant. Each new development, or purchase by another country brings about tales of CVN's on the bottom of the Persian gulf of F-22's falling from the skies in droves. It may yet come to pass, but I doubt it in this instance

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:41 PM

by Pootie
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

Maybe, but the vast majority of America (homebase) is not!

now, find a way to take out all of our communication and positioning satellites and we have a really big problem.

Unfortunately, that is very easily done with a few Nukes in Low Earth Orbit. Thus, all the talk of Space based defenses aka. 'THE WEAPONIZATION OF SPACE'! OH NO Mr. Bill!

We are in a dangerous state of Denial in this country, and Chickens do come Home to roost.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:42 PM

Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km 1,270
- at height, km 3,000
- with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200
- with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000

so plus refuelling, it also depends whether the plane is at cruise altitudes of 11 to 13 km.
The F22 might defeated the F-15/16/18 in practice, with the thrust vectoring control ability this flanker is at least a very nice challenge in close combat. And as they use it as a 27PU long-range interceptor or awacs, on long range they could be a challenge as well..
challenge that is..

And i doubt the iranians would just let their whole fleet and communications get destroyed in a first wave of attacks..
I just saw in what short notice hezbollah builded underground tunnels[bbc documentaire] i think those iranians also like to dig in their grounds..if not only for their nuclear assets..

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Foppezao]

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:31 AM

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 a reason to?

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Pootie

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?

Sorry, didnt see this post before i posted mine... but yeah, we dont like people getting too much of an ego boost

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:51 AM
The actual air engagement strategy used by Iran will...hypothetically...determine how the Iranian air gets used. Given their uprtaed capabilities, I think we need to assume that they'll engage with strategic rocket forces and strategic air with supporting tac air. That's missiles in the air, strike flights at several altitudes, and sub-sonic tac air flying nap-of-the-earth.

For those who know, this is straight out of the Soviet playbook. Saturation tactics. They'll conduct probing missions two weeks before the actual assault to force irregular Israwli scrambles. It should be expected that Syrian air will run intereference which may include airborne ECM. When the hammer comes down, some effort will be made to find as many IDF airborne command and surveillance platforms as possible.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:14 AM
The USAF hasn't really been tested against an better or equal opposition in more then an generation so there is an big risk of over confidence like there was pre December 7 1941.

The only other thing I am going to add is that it is ease for an country like Iran to buy up warplanes. But having enough spare parts and the expertise to keep the likes of the Su30 flying is another thing all together.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by xpert11
The USAF hasn't really been tested against an better or equal opposition in more then an generation so there is an big risk of over confidence like there was pre December 7 1941.

The only other thing I am going to add is that it is ease for an country like Iran to buy up warplanes. But having enough spare parts and the expertise to keep the likes of the Su30 flying is another thing all together.

Thanks for mentioning the part about having enough spare parts and expertise to keep those planes flying. In reading this thread, nobody was even thinking about that. They were mostly talking about who is better than who and not thinking about the details.

Another thing is that if this is even true that Iran just bought all this stuff. If the US sees all that as a threat to their forces, they could try destroying everything - or what they see most threatening at least - before it ever reaches Iran.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:37 AM
I'm just going to give the same warning I did back when the US went into Iraq...

Setting foot in Iran is a BAD idea. Not only will you actually have a military that can stand toe to toe this time, but their people are also willing to form an insurgency against any and all US troops who set foot in the country.

Of course, just like back when I warned people before Iraq... the warning will either be met with skepticism, or simple "anti-American" bashes.

... and I also understand that it's not really your issue to read the warning, as you the people don't make any decisions... but I'd rather be the one who warned and was shunned, than the one who became complacent.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:48 AM
If the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt hadn't overthrown the Iranian Prime minister in '53 (because he nationalized the oil companies) and then let the Shah go wild, we wouldn't be in this mess anyway. Reap what you sow. Of course it all comes down to oil, and control.

If we'd have shown even a modicum of respect and restraint for a sovereign nation instead of always thinking we can bully them and have our way and it will all work out fine and dandy for us and our oil interests, the ME would be a far less dangerous place for us today.

But no, we never learn from our mistakes; we simply repeat them in escalating steps for over 50 years, so that now we've got the Cheney/neocon cabal ready to nuke them into submission for the arrogance of believing they are independent of our will.

Ok, say you go ahead and do it. Nuke 'em. Then what? Sure, it'll be a catharsis and the neocons can have their war orgasm and Iran will be laid flat for a time, but what will it unleash, a month later, ten years later?

It's the same blindness to the future consequences of one's actions that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. And we can see how well that mentality worked in Iraq.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 11:18 AM
Sometimes you have to start war to delay the inevitable. War doesnt cure much of anything but it can delay things. If we hadnt gone into Iraq and they were already nuclear where would we be right now? At least we put that off for a time anyway. Same thing with iran...maybe they will eventually go nuclear in the future but the longer we can stave off certain countries from obtaining these horrible weapons the longer humanity can survive.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 11:22 AM

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 Iraqi military was essentially gutted when we went in - after the huge losses in the 1991 Gulf War and then 12 years of sanctions, the Iraqi military (never a cutting-edge force in the first place) was barely functional.

In contrast, Iran has been steadily rebuilding, retraining, and re-equipping it's forces (themselves quite badly reduced during the Islamic revolution) since the Iran-Iraq war. Not only that, but unlike Iraq's army - mostly Shia conscripts unwillingly fighting for a Sunni-dominated state - the Iranians are highly nationalistic and well motivated. There's also the fact that Iran has almost three times the population of Iraq and is geographically roughly a third larger...

The two (Iraq 2003 and Iran 2007) are not remotely comparable foes by any measure.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:47 PM
So maybe this all explains the billion dollar contracts the US had made with Saudi Arabia and several other gulf states

Story Highlights
"It's all about Iran," official says of Saudi arms package under consideration

Deal not closed; will be discussed next week by top U.S., Saudi officials

For the first time, Saudis may get satellite-guided bombs called JDAMs

Israel expected to raise concerns about the proposed arms deal[dutch but reliable source]

The Israelis shouldnt be to concerned, the next decade they could expect 30 billion worth of military aid according to
To bad this 250 arms deal is not confirmed yet by other sources.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in