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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I am sure US would win the battle but not the War and with the War in Yugoslavia it showed that US is not invincible, as yanks say they are. With the current air exercises in India against US air force which showed how easily USAF can be shot down when their enemy has right weapons in their hands and knows how to use them, therefore, there is definitely going to be big loses on both sides, IRan is not IRAQ, it is a different story. and for the people who say, that planes won't be able even to lift up the ground before they are destroyed is BS, Iran will use Tor1 ground-to- air missiles + S300 which can detect stealth and besides, iranian air force will be patrolling the air space in case of a surprise attack.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by K_galmine]

[edit on 5-8-2007 by K_galmine]




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
If something like war with Iran happened, would the USAF lose aircraft? Yes, we will.

But I'm willing to bet my paycheck (because I know I'll be betting my butt in that fight!) that Iran's AF will be junked in a few days. I don't care how much money they pour into their AF, if the guys don't have the training and experience, they're screwed.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The first post in this thread is filled with so many inaccuracies, misinformation as well as oversimplifications its hard to take it seriously. Anyone who thinks Iran stands a chance during the conventional part of the war is not basing their view on reality. In any scenario besides occupation the results are not in doubt. In an occupation we could only be successful if Iran's population really shows it's pro democracy, pro western and moderate side. And they are more moderate, friendly and stable than the Iraqi population which is why I think any war with Iran should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Iran is headed toward democracy as newer generations come into power, we would only turn them against us and empower the Mullahs if we attack unprovoked.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Meanwhile, Israeli media reports last week that Iran is in negotiations to buy 250 Sukhoi Su-30s to replace its entire fighter arsenal were denied by Russian arms export firm Rosoboronexport, which called the reports a "delusion".

A London-based newspaper has also reported that Iran may seek to acquire MiG-31s and Su-30s from Syria, which is also reportedly in negotiations with Rosoboronexport.

Source

Russia is denying any such deal, and there has been nothing out of either country about this. I can't see Iran being able to purchase 270 aircraft at once though. It would be prohibitively expensive for them. Another issue brought up would be pilot training. If they are feeling pressured by the US and allies, this is the WORST possible time to be buying totally new planes, and trying to get crews up to speed on them.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

If they are feeling pressured by the US and allies, this is the WORST possible time to be buying totally new planes, and trying to get crews up to speed on them.


Got a point there. I didn't think of that, but it makes sense. Nothing like getting caught with your pants down with untrained pilots.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
The last time NATO forces actually faught ANY other Air force was in 1998-99 campaign over Kosovo. America even lost it's first Stealth fighter.[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/306091.stm]

Now we can debate whether the BBC was telling the turth or not in 1999, or we lost it only because of stupid flight routes,but this was not the only aerial unit we lost there.


Still agreeing.



Yes of course now perhaps the planes were not taken out in the air, but they were initially damaged while flying by mere "guerilla fighters, insurgents".


I don't see how that counts as as a 'source' but then it really is hard to find any that suggest that NATO lost as many aircraft as i suspect. If you can find more details on that earlier claim do let me know but until then the following might serve your point better:


Nato is suffering significant losses. Reliable alternative sources in
Washington have counted up to 38 aircraft crashed or shot down, and an
undisclosed number of American and British special forces killed. This is
suppressed, of course.

www.aeronautics.ru...



It is clear from the amount and quality of intelligence received by this journal from a variety of highly-reputable sources that NATO forces have already suffered significant losses of men, women and materiel. Neither NATO, nor the US, UK or other member governments, have admitted to these losses, other than the single USAF F-117A Stealth fighter which was shown, crashed and burning inside Serbia.

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had denied, about a month into the bombing, that the US had suffered the additional losses reported to Defense & Foreign Affairs.

By April 20, 1999, NATO losses stood at approximately the following:

* 38 fixed-wing combat aircraft;
* Six helicopters;
* Seven unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
* “Many” Cruise Missiles (lost to AAA or SAM fire).

www.aeronautics.ru...



This was a tiny country of ten million that was surrounded by NATO forces and was able to bite back pretty good for its size.


If these reports are accurate then they did bite back but i think it's fair to state that merely keeping their ground forces in the field were quite a feat. Those types of aircraft losses best explains the ineffective NATO air campaign but there are alternative explanations for even that.


Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces.[12] Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

www.answers.com...



"WASHINGTON--Data released piecemeal by U.S. and European military authorities are finally painting a well-rounded portrait of NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia--and showing how limited its effects have been.
The figures indicate that while more than five weeks of pounding have badly damaged important parts of the nation's military infrastructure, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic retains many of his field forces and air defenses, and much of his fuel and ammunition. His forces generally can communicate with each other, maneuver and arrange for resupply.
The Yugoslav army still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes, according to official estimates released during the past week. And although NATO warplanes have blown up the major rail links into Kosovo, five of the province's eight major roads remain at least partially passable, according to British officials.


www.aeronautics.ru...



It did not possess the industrial capacity Iran has now to produce and acquire better military forces, but it did what it did with very little to work with.


Yugoslavia produced it's own native combat aircraft before the breakup and i think it's industrial potential should be seen in that light.


Tell me exactly how well trained American and Israelie air forces actually are than anyone else if they have not actually fought another air-force since probably what, WW2 and the Mid East war? Vietnam?


The IAF is a far better trained air force than the USAF and exercises have proved that the USAF should probably not think of taking on the Canadians either. Vietnam , interestingly, showed that even against a badly trained third world air force the USAF/USN could not manage economic exchange rates and that it won ( or really lost in the end) only because it could absorb disproportionate exchange ratios and keep fighting. Much like Vietnamese were willing to keep on fighting despite losing a few men for each enemy soldier killed the USAF/USN could keep going because the US taxpayer were there to be milked.


Nope, just bombed the hell out of ground targets. Libya? Nope, ujuts bomed the hell out of ground targets. Iraq 1991? Was not much to for them to do there either.


The Iraqi air force could not contend with the Iranian one so maybe that should offer a clue as to why it lost so badly. In fact i can name a few third world air forces that may have rivalled the USAF performance.



I am not saying Iran would win, not that another military conflict between players like this would leave any winners.


There are ALWAYS winners and losers and it really depends entirely on what type of conditions each side is willing to accept. If one country such as say Vietnam is willing to fight a liberation struggle lasting decades and costing millions of lives then that really is hard to 'beat' short of killing them all or making the concessions they at first demanded.


All I am saying is some of yall are putting too much thinking that our forces are invincible with forcefields. You can train all day and night for months and years on end for a ground combat operation, but when it coems to the real deal, it is something completely different. Works the same with any Aerial or Naval campaign.


That is true too a large extent but we also know that well thought out plans can destroy a enemies capacity to fight back. The historic record is littered with instances were supposedly superior forces were overcome by the audacious plans and prompt actions of supposedly lesser forces but it's hard not to notice all the instances were superior forces used their superiority to absolutely smash the resistance by planning thoroughly and exploiting all perceived enemy weaknesses while attempting to negate their own. As you say there are no easy ways to predict what will happen in wars but we do know that it's hard to beat people who want to win and refuse to give up before doing so.


A simulation can produce whatever results the simulators want it too.


And if the simulator/simulation is not entirely self serving that is a fact what makes them so good. A simulation is as useful as the accuracy of the data employed and the moment you involve politics then the usefulness is going to be degraded.


Reality produces results that may never have even been thought of in a simulation.


A useful simulation can model anything imaginable and that is it's strength. When the creator decides that certain things 'wont happen' then again they better not happen or things can spectacularly change for the worse.


It is just too random, spontaneous, and uncontrolled to yield to desired statistics.


I tend to share that view but i have also seen the results of the war gaming the German general staff did before the invasion of the Soviet Union and it's hard to be so dismissive when events transpired almost exactly as they expected it to. As is evident by the uncanny way in which supply requirements and casualty figures ( to ensure sufficient trained replacements) were measured and delivered at desired times at the right places these people were not pulling numbers from thin air and it seems they simply put the right numbers in the right places when they were doing those simulations. That's no mean feat and i am sure those who win are those who best model the expected result and thus know when to fight and when to make whatever concessions they must to avoid what they expect to follow.

Hope that 'helps'.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Great information there Stellar, I learned alot. Thanks for the interesting dialogue. It just goes to show that a proper strategy and the will to not back down can go a long way against a technologically superior and/or outnumbering invasive force.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 



I promise you the mighty United States would not lose a war with Iran.I'll give you my left kidney if that is the case.

And i know the U.S is not invinceable,but i know we would mop the floor with Iran.I think we should have destroyed Iran a long time ago.I have heard numbers higher than 75% of U.S soldier deaths are caused by roadside bombs.And the majority and certainly the most deadly of these IED's come from Iran.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Project_Silo]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Well that sounds like a lot of saber rattling to me. Just remember that even without nukes, Russia is neither Iraq, or Afghanistan, and neither is Iran. For someone whose moniker is "Princeofpeace", you are much more a warmonger.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Iran should really aim for heavy US casualties , that is the soft underbelly of the US war machine . They can't stand loss of life of their precious troops. Could these jets be used in raids against concentrated US personnel say in the Iraqi green zone with great success ? Or used against their naval fleets . Rather that than taking down other aircraft with a lower casualty figure .



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I don't know what all of those nice new and clean Russian bombers are going to do for Iran since they will all be sitting on the tarmac within bomb craters if the U.S. attacked.Not to mention their airfields would all have craters in them;kinda hard to take off. They would be hit with massive amounts of cruise missiles in the middle of the night before the first f-22 even entered their airspace.

[edit on 6/22/2008 by CaptGizmo]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
If the news is true then so what? US makes their own death equipment and don't need to import. Is this the point of the thread to tell us that the US doesn't need to import or is it to make us question why the US haven't issued UN resolutions against the USSR for supplying death equipment and then they (US) will plan to attack as they are clearly acting for (in US terms) a terrorist state and therefore (as per Bush) to be treated as a Terrorist state?

Always the wrong questions being asked and focus on the wrong aggressor!

Well done NWO elites, you have the total control and support of your sheep if these posts are anything to go by.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mlmijyd
If the news is true then so what?



Hmm how about World War 3? If the US attacks Iran you can bet your ass it will be nothing like attacking Iraq. Iran has a sizable military force and the second its attacked it will result in the beginning of WW3.

______________________________________________________________
The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Persian: نيروهای مسلح جمهوری اسلامی ايران) include the IRIA (Persian: ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران) , the IRGC (Persian: سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی), and the Police Force[1] (Persian: نيروی انتظامی جمهوری اسلامی ایران).

These forces total about 545,000 active personnel.[2] All branches of armed forces fall under the command of General Headquarters of Armed Forces (ستاد کل نیروهای مسلح). Ministry of Defense & Armed Forces Logistics is responsible for planning logistics and funding of the armed forces and is not involved in in-the-field military operational command.

en.wikipedia.org...
______________________________________________________________


[edit on 6-22-2008 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
If USA attacks Iran, why would China / Russia get involved?

reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Glad to see someone actually has a sence of reality.


[edit on 22/6/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
If USA attacks Iran, why would China / Russia get involved?




1) Proximity to Warzone
2) Russia sold them the Jets for a reason (Allies)
3) So far the US has invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and now maybe Iran. Don't you think China and Russia have something to worry about as whats preventing the US from stopping there???



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
1 / 2. OK.

3. Invading either Russia or China would be suicide.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I think that invading Iran is going to be not only suicide for the US but for the rest of the world. This is going to be the 3rd country the US has illegally invaded if they go through with it. The only country which had anything to do with 9/11 (According to the official story which is highly disputed) was Afghanistan.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I don't think anyone is suggesting that USA will invade Iran. Only thing I could see is a air campaign severely damaging there military capability.

Also, Russia, denied this fighter export. I always thought Russia exports arms to strengthen there economy. No allies.?

[edit on 22/6/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
An air strike is not an invasion? Its still a war man. Its a declaration of war upon the country. The second the us starts air strikes is the second Iran gets in their jets and bombs the hell out of US cities. Think about that for awhile. A pre-emptive strike will only destroy so many jets.

[edit on 6-22-2008 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CPYKOmega
 


Iran cannot reach any US city.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join