US warplanes violate Iran's air space: press report

What if the Arab states were to declare a war against terrorism and invade Israel, would that be acceptable also? In their eyes Israel is committing terrorism.

first of all, NONE of their Air Forces will be capable of even challenging the IAF. Their ground units will be "sitting ducks" to the dominating IAF. In case any arab ground units are able to get into Israel, Israel will use nukes which will force them them to retreat.

Israel is already engaged with terrorists in the West Bank, Gaza, and Southern Lebanon. Israel is commiting terrorism in their eyes, because their brainwashed to hate jews and deny the existence of Israel.

Originally posted by Flyboy211
You seem wholly convinced that America's air power is invincible. I don't think it's easy as that, how do you know that Iran hasn't got a comprehensive AA defence system? With Russia supplying them then who knows what they really have.

Not invincable, but against Iran? I mean come on! We are not talking mother Russia here, but Iran. Russia does not sell it's top of the line computers, radar ect to protect herself. Then you have the fact that the US has more aircraft then Iran in the region, all of those aircraft are better then Irans, the US have better suply lines (if we went to war all of Irans runways, hangers, powerplants, major bridgesect ect ect would be gone in a few hours), better radar/tracking - I mean the list goes on and on.

So yes, against Iran, I would say the US would have air dominance, not air superiority AT THE VERY LEAST.

I was under the impression that the US military was already streched beyond means... I have read about the mandatory extensions of service, and the conisderations for a draft, and the fact that right now they are moving troops from S Korea to reinforce other overworked areas... so what makes anyone think that this wouldn't be the perfect time for an arab coalition to attack our armed forces while they are massed largely in the persian gulf. Or to attack Israel while we couldn't (and probably wouldn't from election pressure) aid them much... It would be a grand OOPS to have to ask congress for another trillion or so to make another front of war...
especially with the largest enemy we have faced since the cold war...

on another note: there has been obvious posturing on both sides right now, and i hope that is all it is. By the way... anyone who thinks that the US contingent in the gulf couldn't be wiped out quickly with a lucky well placed attack, just look at a map of how small an area that is. I feel that the US is the best miltary force there is, but every dog has his lucky day (9-11). let us not be so comfortable that we are surprised again.
I really don't think it is a good time to piss in iranians post toasties...
and without question, if we saw a iranian jet (or 5) flying over the local sports arena, we would be seeing a massive escort of American planes that were either going to escort out of the area, or just blow it up, shortly therafter. I don't think we would be liking iranians very much either...
i know it is just military bs, but it does suck...

The US Goverment is banking on a Coup in Iran, to prevent the destruction of Irans infrastructure once the military action begins against the leaders of Iran.

Originally posted by Nygdan

somewhereinbetween:
Bush would be an idiot to attack Iran before the election

If he perceives it as a real threat then he should attack it immediately, election or not. 'Not saddling an incomming presidency with a new war' is the justification I have often heard given for the Clinton Admin not attacking afghanistand and al-qaeda at the end of clinton's term (personally I don't beleive this, a threat is a threat, irregardless of who is in the administration).

And if the threat is serious enough bush should be taking care of it regardless of the political implications.

Why would the US be invading Iran if the Israeliis attack the nuke plant there? To begin with, they would probably need to fly over Iraqi airspace. It would be exceedingly difficult to say that the Iraqi government agreed to this without strong pressure from the US. Then, after the strike, how would the Iranians be able to respond? Any attack would have to cross iraq, or at least its airspace, short of Turkey granting passage, which is unthinkable now. So how would the US be able to 'come to the defense of an ally' if the ally isn't even attacked?

Lebanon is not the sole aggressor here, since Israel is well known make its own forays into their space. Case in point its bombing of Syria earlier this year

Since lebanon is occupied by a syrian controlled governement, and terrorist groups that attack israel have offices in the syrian capital, why shouldn't israel periodically raid lebanon and syria?

You�re slightly confused, in what you quoted from me relative to your response. Why would the US be invading Iran if the Israelis attack the nuke plant there? To begin with, they would probably need to fly over Iraqi airspace. It would be exceedingly difficult to say that the Iraqi government agreed to this without strong pressure from the US. Then, after the strike, how would the Iranians be able to respond? Any attack would have to cross iraq, or at least its airspace, short of Turkey granting passage, which is unthinkable now. So how would the US be able to 'come to the defense of an ally' if the ally isn't even attacked?

Addressing your first point; I have no argument with that philosophy, but it is not likely to happen just prior to an election race too close to call especially where the backing of Iraq by the citizenry has declined, and that was the crux of my statement.

Regarding the last point you make; Bush�s determination to induce regime change in Iran. He tried it via inciting the Iranians to rise up against the government by employing propaganda through satellite broadcasts, and Israel attacking Iran�s nuclear facilities has nothing to do with Bush�s push to see that regime change come about. Somehow I doubt that an attack by Israel on Iran has to done by invading Iraq�s or any other countries airspace, they have Jericho -2 missiles capable of striking Iran, aside from which what Israel wants from the United states, Israel gets, and the Iraqi government is controlled by the pentagon. Raising the issue of how Iran will respond is not what I addressed, as you are now delving into a conflict solely between the two countries which was not my position. Furthermore, if you think hard enough you would understand that regardless of whether Israel attacked Iran first or not, Bush would use any retaliation by Iran to carry out its attack on Iran under the guise of being Israel�s ally.

The ploy is not difficult to understand. Israel would like to attack Iran knowing full well that Iraq is out of the picture and Bush needs a palpable excuse to attack Iran, there being none better at this time than having to defend an ally.

An alliance of Arab states would certainly not fear retaliation by Israel

They should, since they couldn't defeat Israel in the two wars they started against then in the past.

Was Lebanon in 1982 an alliance? The Yom Kippur war in 1974 came to a halt via diplomatic pressure. 1982 was 22 years ago and much has changed.

Originally posted by DJAghetto

What if the Arab states were to declare a war against terrorism and invade Israel, would that be acceptable also? In their eyes Israel is committing terrorism.

first of all, NONE of their Air Forces will be capable of even challenging the IAF. Their ground units will be "sitting ducks" to the dominating IAF. In case any arab ground units are able to get into Israel, Israel will use nukes which will force them them to retreat.

Israel is already engaged with terrorists in the West Bank, Gaza, and Southern Lebanon. Israel is commiting terrorism in their eyes, because their brainwashed to hate jews and deny the existence of Israel.

That seems wishful thinking on your part. Despite the fact that you too veer away from my posited hypothesis of an Arabian alliance attacking Israel, which was about such an alliance declaring Israel a terrorist nation and attacking same, using the logic behind the U.S attacking other nations, you lean toward a one on one fight. That is not the issue, however, Israel cannot adequately defend itself against an alliance of Arab countries, which for the sake of argument we will say are Syria; Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt. Despite Israel�s prowess in fighters, I highly doubt they handle an attack from even two countries simultaneously.

By the way, I wouldn�t be so certain that Turkey or any other Arab nation would not ally itself against a fight with Israel. In fact, I would say it is a given considering that the U.S was declined. And in case you aren�t aware, Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Syria have been busying themselves in building a relationship.

You might want to read article 2 of the Arab League of Nation�s Defence and Economic Cooperation Treaty.

From where you sit the Arabs are brainwashed to hate Jews, from where they sit, Jews hate Arabs and you have been brainwashed to side with the Jews. So what does this sentiment of yours have to do with declare a nation a terrorist nation and attacking it was my point?

Staying on topic works best.

Originally by DJAghetto
no matter what, Iran's air defense system wont be able to shoot down stealth bombers and fighters

That's what they said before Kosovo, look what happened a F117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter was shot down by the Serb forces. Remember the wing being paraded on television?

I think the only way Iran or any other country could overwhelm American warplanes would be to simply outnumber them 5 - 1 or something similar. If they used cheaper fighters such as Mig 17's/19's/21's/23's and just arm them with tons of cannon shells, yeah they'd take losses but at close range it's anyone's game. However i doubt Iran could pull that off.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by DJAghetto

What if the Arab states were to declare a war against terrorism and invade Israel, would that be acceptable also? In their eyes Israel is committing terrorism.

first of all, NONE of their Air Forces will be capable of even challenging the IAF. Their ground units will be "sitting ducks" to the dominating IAF. In case any arab ground units are able to get into Israel, Israel will use nukes which will force them them to retreat.

Israel is already engaged with terrorists in the West Bank, Gaza, and Southern Lebanon. Israel is commiting terrorism in their eyes, because their brainwashed to hate jews and deny the existence of Israel.

That seems wishful thinking on your part. Despite the fact that you too veer away from my posited hypothesis of an Arabian alliance attacking Israel, which was about such an alliance declaring Israel a terrorist nation and attacking same, using the logic behind the U.S attacking other nations, you lean toward a one on one fight. That is not the issue, however, Israel cannot adequately defend itself against an alliance of Arab countries, which for the sake of argument we will say are Syria; Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt. Despite Israel�s prowess in fighters, I highly doubt they handle an attack from even two countries simultaneously.

By the way, I wouldn�t be so certain that Turkey or any other Arab nation would not ally itself against a fight with Israel. In fact, I would say it is a given considering that the U.S was declined. And in case you aren�t aware, Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Syria have been busying themselves in building a relationship.

You might want to read article 2 of the Arab League of Nation�s Defence and Economic Cooperation Treaty.

From where you sit the Arabs are brainwashed to hate Jews, from where they sit, Jews hate Arabs and you have been brainwashed to side with the Jews. So what does this sentiment of yours have to do with declare a nation a terrorist nation and attacking it was my point?

Staying on topic works best.

In 1948, Israel was attacked as soon as they declared independence. They had a very limited supply of ammunition, armed vehicles, etc. against 6 countries with unlimited firepower. Today, Israel has unlimited firepower. They also have a dominating Air Force which has proven itself many times before and is considered one of the best in the world. To top that off, they're in possession of over 250 nukes. The arab countries don't have that today. Their "OK" military is not even close compared to Israel's technologically advanced military. Today, Israel is the superpower in the region. Hopefully now, you understand why an arab alliance is useless against a nuclear-armed country with one of the world's most technologically advanced military and Air Force.

However, it would be funny to see the arab countries get vaporized a few seconds after they declare a "War on Terrorism" against Israel.

Don't be so arrogant and self assured. You've only erected yourself a 'fence' around the borders, but sooner or later the strays will find their way through. You might have an 'advanced' air force and army, but all it would take for an Arab alliance to succeed is simply mass produce cheaper models. If they had 5 - 1 advantage in number of fighter planes compared to yours then you'd simply be screwed. They'd only need fighters such as Mig-19's,/21's/23's/29's maybe a few Su-25 & 27's in sufficient numbers and bye bye Israel.

I was under the impression that the US military was already streched beyond means...

This is true, to an extent, when speaking of the ability to occupy land with ground forces...

However, in a less than a day, we could neutralize their air force, their ground to air effectiveness, and from then on it'd simply be fish in a barrel for units, armor, etc. that aren't hardened. The ensuing carpet bombing would take care of any hardened targets.

The thing about Iran is that it wouldn't be a war to topple a regime and of occupation, but a war to destroy their ability to make war. As long as that is the goal, it is quite achievable by the US military, utilizing air power only (just as in the first Gulf War).

The problem with Iraq, is that the end goal completely depended on ground forces....and they didn't use enough air power in the initial stages of the war, because they underestimated the resistance....



[edit on 27-8-2004 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Originally posted by moxyone
the US is already at war w/ Iran....the battleground is Iraq.

YEP!
The war is on terrorism.
Terrorist supporting nations are the enemy.
Iran is on the list of Supporters of terrorsim.

Maybe we could fight a more "sensitive" war ( Kerryism)..
And Ask permission before entering an ENEMY'S airspace?

This is plain silly..

Just for your information whenever there is instability other countries economies are badly affected. I really wonder if there is an end to all this. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end. Clearly US administration is seeking control of the world resources. Probably there will be another SARS or something more serious this time so that people won't think too much about what is going on.

Originally posted by Flyboy211

That's what they said before Kosovo, look what happened a F117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter was shot down by the Serb forces. Remember the wing being paraded on television?

I think the only way Iran or any other country could overwhelm American warplanes would be to simply outnumber them 5 - 1 or something similar. If they used cheaper fighters such as Mig 17's/19's/21's/23's and just arm them with tons of cannon shells, yeah they'd take losses but at close range it's anyone's game. However i doubt Iran could pull that off.

That is just flat out wrong, espeially the whole "load em with shells"part. The fact is, with this strategy, every single Iranian plane would be shot down at BVR, they would never even see thier targets. You really need to read up on the abillity/strategy of US A2A combat.

Originally posted by WisdomMaster

Just for your information whenever there is instability other countries economies are badly affected. I really wonder if there is an end to all this. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end. Clearly US administration is seeking control of the world resources. Probably there will be another SARS or something more serious this time so that people won't think too much about what is going on.

UHHHH OHHHHH ZCheng (or whatever his name is) has gotten to someone, and is spreading ChiCom lies.

Well, yes and no on the whole numbers versus quality thing. If you have enough Cessna's you could eventually eliminate the USAF by finally getting close enough to ram their planes. 'Course this would take thousands of Cessnas!

Personally, I think 5-1 wouldn't be quite enough. Probably more like 10-1. But then i'm certainly not an AF expert soI could be wrong!

Originally posted by Montana
Well, yes and no on the whole numbers versus quality thing. If you have enough Cessna's you could eventually eliminate the USAF by finally getting close enough to ram their planes. 'Course this would take thousands of Cessnas!

Personally, I think 5-1 wouldn't be quite enough. Probably more like 10-1. But then i'm certainly not an AF expert soI could be wrong!

Not to be a stickler for details, but since fighters are MUCH faster then Cessna's, they would not be able to ram US fighters

The point stands. With enough of anything any plane can be eliminated.

Originally posted by DJAghetto
In 1948, Israel was attacked as soon as they declared independence. They had a very limited supply of ammunition, armed vehicles, etc. against 6 countries with unlimited firepower.

Again, what does 1948 even further back, have to do with today?

I am no warfare expert, but I have no idea from where you get your information. Does the information contained herein support your claim that the Israeli's were litely armed?

www.balagan.org.uk...

case in point: 20 mm anti-tank guns; 82nd Tank Battalion (Felix Beatus)
2 x Cromwells stolen from the British, 1 - 3 x Shermans rebuilt from scrap with French 75 mm guns, Russian (speaking) Company 10 x French Hotchkiss H-39 light tanks; Israeli Equipment Tanks and Armoured Cars,
2 x Cromwells stolen from the British, 3 x Shermans rebuilt from scrap with French 75 mm guns, 10 x French Hotchkiss H-39 light tanks (1940 vintage)

Infantry Weapons

Czech made Mauser Kar 98K rifle. British Sten Sub-machinegun, German MP40 sub-machineguns, British Bren light machine guns, Besa 7.62 mm light machine guns, Czech MG34 light machine guns, US .30 cal Browning machineguns, US .50 cal Browning machineguns, Czech ZB-37 heavy machinegun, Piat anti-tank weapons 2" mortars , 3" mortars.

Today, Israel has unlimited firepower. They also have a dominating Air Force which has proven itself many times before and is considered one of the best in the world.

And what exactly does the west or you know of the military forces of the arab states, other than the fact we know that Saudi Arabia is equipped with a fleet of Abrams and U.S fighters? Exactly what do you know of the weapons russia supplies to Iran, perhaps those very same SU-30s that India used to best the U.S f-15s?

It seems that you have fallen prey to rhetorical nonsense so pervasive from U.S and Israeli sources that you somehow believe the Arab states today compare to 1948 or even 1982.

To top that off, they're in possession of over 250 nukes. The arab countries don't have that today.

And that is just bravado getting the better of your thinking. Why would Israel release a nuclear weapon within their own radius when the fallout cannot be avoided? So what that they have 250? The more they release they more of themselves they will kill. Lone man standing is a triumph is it? The use of nuclear weapons has got to be one of the most, if not the most idiotic argument today. And especially so when offered up within the context of the ME. The day that Israel releases a nuclear bomb on any of the oil wealth countries is the day that your president ( I gather you are American) literally soils himself.

Suffice it to say, Israel can't even beat some barefoot and towntrodden people living in squalor, they certainly won't manage an influx of a few million. But by all means believe that it will be a slam dunk, or even a win, I'm sure Israel's restraint over the last 50 years agrees with you.

I've had enough of your bravado after that ridiculously twisted scenario.

Bush has no right to declare a global war, and especially one on a trumped up charge of terrorism and use that to invade sovereign nations, especially saovereign nations who did not engage in combative activity against the U.S. Every nation on this earth has terrorist activity within it, does that give him the right to attack Britain, Canada, Australia, France et al?

What if the Arab states were to declare a war against terrorism and invade Israel, would that be acceptable also? In their eyes Israel is committing terrorism.

Some of the most intelligent words I have ever road spoken. Wrongdoing is in the eyes of the beholder.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Flyboy211

That's what they said before Kosovo, look what happened a F117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter was shot down by the Serb forces. Remember the wing being paraded on television?

I think the only way Iran or any other country could overwhelm American warplanes would be to simply outnumber them 5 - 1 or something similar. If they used cheaper fighters such as Mig 17's/19's/21's/23's and just arm them with tons of cannon shells, yeah they'd take losses but at close range it's anyone's game. However i doubt Iran could pull that off.

That is just flat out wrong, espeially the whole "load em with shells"part. The fact is, with this strategy, every single Iranian plane would be shot down at BVR, they would never even see thier targets. You really need to read up on the abillity/strategy of US A2A combat.

You obviously didn't read my words properly i wasn't talking about American tactics but possible IRANIAN tactics. What has "US A2A combat" as you put it got anything to do with Iran's possible tactics, which is what i was talking about.

I know fully well that the American warplanes have BVRAAM's, however the reason for their aerial dominance is because they're not challenged in sufficient numbers and up front. Due to the fact that they employ long range weapons they can easily pick off targets, which is incredibly easy considering the biggest airforce they'd face would only be 30 planes or so, not enough to challenge the US Air Force or Navy.

"That is just flat out wrong" So you're denying the fact that a F117A Nighthawk was shot down by the Serbs? It's wing was paraded over Serb television incase you had forgot, which in turn was broadcast practically over the world

So you've actually served in the military and are up to date with their current Air-to-Air engagement tactics?

My theory is that for all the US military's advantages in terms of technology and training, it still has one weakness. It's over-reliance on advanced technology that is expensive to maintain, generally takes a longer time to assemble and could prove fatal if it malfunctions in battle. I discussed this in another thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The tactic i suggested was to OVERWHELM the American Warplanes purely by numbers. I don't know whether it would be 5 -1 or 10 -1, i don't work in the military so i couldn't know

However for argument sake say the Iranians had a huge manufacturing base and also a steady supply of planes and pilots from Russia/China or somewhere else. These could range from MIG-19's/21's/23's/29's/30's & SU-27's, now you could arm some of them with missiles and others with more cannon rounds. The Iranian planes on the WHOLE are technically less advanced than the American planes, less expensive, easier and quicker to assemble, faster for pilots to train on & easier to maintain.

Then that would give them an advantage over the Americans, don't you agree? The fact that Iran would be operating over their own skies means less flight time and more fuel to spare. The Americans would have to fly from carrier's and bases across the border to get there, the Iranians would detect them and simply intercept them.

Now the American warplanes only have a limited amount of missiles, correct? If that was the case including fighting superior numbers and in battle where potentially big number of targets then things would get confusing. Surely with that many planes in one area the Americans wouldn't simply just fire at anything they can lock onto, they'd want to make sure that the target they've locked onto is definitely hostile. I know they possess a 'IFF' 'Identify Friend or Foe' system in place but in the heat of battle things can get confusing.

So Iranian jets are flying towards the Americans meaning they are closing in on them and sure a few of them would get shot down by the American AA missiles but there'd be too many of them to shoot down just by missiles not to mention the supply of missiles would run out resulting in close in dogfighting which would then put the American and Iranian planes on an equal footing.

Now doesn't that make sense?

This is only hypothetical i know, but i was merely describing ONE possible tactic that could be used to defeat the American warplanes.

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1

Bush has no right to declare a global war, and especially one on a trumped up charge of terrorism and use that to invade sovereign nations, especially saovereign nations who did not engage in combative activity against the U.S. Every nation on this earth has terrorist activity within it, does that give him the right to attack Britain, Canada, Australia, France et al?

What if the Arab states were to declare a war against terrorism and invade Israel, would that be acceptable also? In their eyes Israel is committing terrorism.

Some of the most intelligent words I have ever road spoken. Wrongdoing is in the eyes of the beholder.

Thank you kindly.