It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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).
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.
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. 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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
I am not saying Iran would win, not that another military conflict between players like this would leave any winners.
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.
A simulation can produce whatever results the simulators want it too.
Reality produces results that may never have even been thought of in a simulation.
It is just too random, spontaneous, and uncontrolled to yield to desired statistics.
Originally posted by mlmijyd
If the news is true then so what?
Originally posted by C0bzz
If USA attacks Iran, why would China / Russia get involved?