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.


US warplanes violate Iran's air space: press report

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:59 PM
If you guys want to talk about US vs. Iran airwar just talk about F-14s and Phoenix missiles vs. whatever the hell we have now, because that's the best thing they have.

But it's not going to be a big cool air war. First we'll put on sanctions, then make another coalition, then do raids with stealth and night raids to take out airfields ad nauseum, then finally let the normal planes in, etc. Sorry, but we're not gonna see "Iron Eagle 5" or something, reality is much more mundane. We're not going to have a "Five Minutes Over Tehran" without a far larger military and the required national mobilization and war footing.

No amount of Hollywood Top Gun BS is going to change the fact that ultra unbeatable uber US aircraft still often fall out of the sky, often on their own accord, but even moreso when they actually get engaged by a missile. The entire air war would be conducted with the goal that US aircrew operate in the safest theater available, meaning that, optimally, the enemy's aircraft are destroyed on the ground, his radar is fried by ECM, and pilot barracks are wasted, preferably while the pilots are sleeping.

As far as the Israeli Air Force being invincible, or whatever, unless they are protected by some holy mumbo jumbo, which if you believe you are mentally defective, they are every bit as real as any other pilots and aircraft and aircrew and airfields in the world. Feeling invincible comes with bad results like in Yom Kippur war where IAF Phantoms that went to reinforce the Suez were shredded en masse by shoulder-fired Soviet SAMS that intelligence told them 'the Egyptians don't have.' Hmmm, so much for Israeli holy shroud, or whatever, let's fall back on what Israelis actually use, like good tactics, intel, training, plans, and equipment.

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Flyboy211

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.

In order for Iranian tactics to be used, they must be able to counter/survive/defeat thier enemies tactics (in this case the US). Show me someone who says that your enemy has nothing to do with your tactics, and I'll show you someone who will have poor tactics.

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.

No - we are not challanged by anyone because no one has the combination of numbers, training, tech, and support that we do. Some have the numbers but not very good tech or training (China) soe have the tech and numbers but no support (Russia) and some don't have any of the above (Iran). Basically, even if we were to go plane for plane with another country, the only one that would have a chance would be Russia with their Sukhois.

"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

Not what I was saying. Yes, it got shot down - but that had more to do with a tip on the time of the mission coupled with the same exact flight path being used multiple times then some super advanced Serbian air defence system. That is not to say that Stealth tech is perfect, but used correctly it is damn close.

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

No, unfortunately I'm not. Due to some serious knee injuries playing football (american) I had to do some serious rehab out of highschool and I basically can't run anymore. As far as tactics, yes, I am familiar with them thanks to a few friends of mine in service.

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....

I would agree that it could be an Achillies heel in a long full scale war with another major power. But we are not talking about Russia or China here, we are talking about Iran, a country which cannot hit our mainland and thus can not disrupt the upkeep of our planes.

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

It would be about 10/15-1, figuring you have to assum that almost all of the missles hit their targets, and then they dogfight with F-15's

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.

Hey, why don't you give them the deathstar while your at it?

ok, you win - in that completely unrealistic, fabricated instance, the Iranian airforce might be able to defeat the US AF/Navy. But this is my whole point - the only chance they have is one where the real world is put on hold and is replaced with an imaginary one.

As long as we are talking like this, let me throw my own "tactic" out there which in all honesty is more probable then the one you presented. The US doesn't need to send a single plane into the skies to fight all of those phantom migs because a bunch of solar powered orbital lasers blow all of those planes up as they take off from their run way.

new topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in