Iran using Phantom F4s

If they have Mig-29s, then they sure have a mighty fine plane. I would much rather have the Mig over that Typhoon anyday.

Theres NOTHING all that special about the Typhoon.

Now the Migs...

reply to post by michael1983l


homestead afb sent a bunch of them to Iran as part of the Iran Contra Affair.......no secret, just forgotten history

Friday, December 23rd, 2011
Posted by Gordon Duff
Breaking: Patriot Missiles Seized, Sold To China by Israel (Updates)

www.veteranstoday.com...

[...]

Germany officials have offered to take responsibility for the shipment to China though there is no record of Germany ever having received the missiles in the first place. There had been a shipment of PAC 2 missiles, 64, several months ago, which had been completed. No further shipment had been scheduled.

Germany is responding to a request from Netanyahu to Merkel to save Israel from a potential spy scandal. Similarly, a South Korean paper has published a story about the missiles but at no time has the South Korean embassy in Helsinki, made a statement or made contact with authorities as would be expected. This one gets more interesting every day.

Germany has a long history of working with Israel, call it “war guilt” or profiteering. The centrifuges used to develop nuclear weapons that were distributed by Israel, first to South Africa then by Israeli Johann Meyer to Libya were of Germany origin. Saddam Hussein received his biological and chemical warfare equipment from Germany, but through Bush family sources, not Israel.

This article seems relevant.

The f4 phantom costs how much to drone-enable? Please someone bump with estimated cost to make an f4 drone.

Also, as mentioned, during WW2 events, Russian towns were allowed to have their own fighter planes, owned outright. Why can't "free" American towns (I mean the citizenry not cops) have their own fighter planes? Why can't Americans at least be as free as Russians were? In this way, each town can have their own fleet of citizen controlled f4 phantom drones.

Anyway, I just wanted to also add this: Rothschild are the bankers for the Vatican. In this way, they have created some vision where rich people flee to China and have slaves like Kim Jong Il and his family. So that's why the middle east will eventually go to China, according to the Rothschild/Vatican/Rockefeller termite ethos, they are currently (and have been for decades) eating away at the oak tree of America.

Obviously American industry had been decimated by the very brands Americans support in heavy machinery, namely Caterpillar who chumplike goes to India/China. So it is an eviscerating of the US through spurious R and D for new new new jets that get "unexpectedly" given to China, new ballistics and missles that get "unexpectedly" given to China, etc, etc --All the while, we have one of the coolest planes in history, the F4 which is easily capable of quickly delivering tactical nukes and which can be up-modded in 2013 to be a stealthier sort of jet. I think we're fool to have built the raptor only to give it to China and have them rip it off so quick. Why did we do that??? Seems stupid.

Anyway this was all designed by the Rothschilds who represent UK/Zio powers and who eventually do intend for Israel to become a Chinese protectorate. For example, when you play the game "DEFCON" you'll not that the player representing China owns the whole Saudi peninsula, and Israel, everything up to the South caucuses and up to Turkey. There is no "Arab" player in the game DEFCON. There's Russia, China, the UK and Africa and the med and the red sea and the persian gulf are all unplayable waterways (Likely due to nuclear mines).

Islam fascists and Mao fascists wouldn't have much to disagree about. If you look closely you can see the black eyes of Satan peering out from both groups so when they merge and take Israel and everything around it, will you be surprised?

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


Sir, Typhoon is superior to the mig hands down.Su-35BM is equal or superior to Typhoon.Typhoon fighters are pretty tough but an S-400/S-300 would bring them down anyways. Iran does not have S-300 but Syria does.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
A missile up the afterburner will affect most planes.

Missile tech is way ahead of plane-tech. The S-300 can down any plane we've got. And it is much cheaper to produce than a plane.

Last time the Straits got clogged up during the tanker wars of 1980's it was China who gave Iran missile tech, one assumes it would happen that way again. China probably has s-300 and s-400 and next gen also, ready to go. These missiles are very fast, very smart.

Chinese missile tech given to the by our own US congress as per the Cox Report and Chinagate in the 1990s, not discussed, nobody punished, etc, etc. No way to win when you've got Marxist assheads running your country.

Anyway, the phantom is a great old plane. It's especially cool when used as a drone. I think the US could produce drone f4 Phantoms for like 300k a piece and just send whole robot waves of them over the enemy. It's stupid that we spend so much money and then it's the enemy who reaps the true profit and victory. Just stupid.

I agree: missiles can decide this conflict.

Fighter jets are too "old school". Missiles are cheaper and faster.

And Iran has tons of anti-aircraft missiles, ready to take down enemy fighter jets.

Iran will not be like Iraq.

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by smallpeeps
A missile up the afterburner will affect most planes.

Missile tech is way ahead of plane-tech. The S-300 can down any plane we've got. And it is much cheaper to produce than a plane.

Last time the Straits got clogged up during the tanker wars of 1980's it was China who gave Iran missile tech, one assumes it would happen that way again. China probably has s-300 and s-400 and next gen also, ready to go. These missiles are very fast, very smart.

Chinese missile tech given to the by our own US congress as per the Cox Report and Chinagate in the 1990s, not discussed, nobody punished, etc, etc. No way to win when you've got Marxist assheads running your country.

Anyway, the phantom is a great old plane. It's especially cool when used as a drone. I think the US could produce drone f4 Phantoms for like 300k a piece and just send whole robot waves of them over the enemy. It's stupid that we spend so much money and then it's the enemy who reaps the true profit and victory. Just stupid.

I agree: missiles can decide this conflict.

Fighter jets are too "old school". Missiles are cheaper and faster.

And Iran has tons of anti-aircraft missiles, ready to take down enemy fighter jets.

Iran will not be like Iraq.

Yeah.

But it seems that Congress was abandoned by the South in 1861 and the country has been fraudulently limping along in debt since Lincoln was martyred by the Jesuits, and Jesut/Vatican powers still control the USA and the people are completely fattened and stupefied so I don't have much hope.

Good thread though, the f4 was a great plane. I guess fading empires can always look back on when they were great. Because these days we're frikking morons and everyone can see it. It's really sad, like some fattened boxer who still think he's the champ. We've been fattened by our leaders, Marxist wolves in sheep's clothing.

I wouldn't discount the Tomcats just yet. The Tomcats which are owned by Iran have been reversed engineered and upgraded through the years using Russian parts. The Radars are the most powerful ever housed in a fighter jet and even still have not been matched. They can fire a volley of six missiles in one go. They can act as a highly agile AWACS, the Tomcats, as long as they are in the hands of skilled pilots, could given modern jets a bloody good run for their money. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were closer to 35 operational. Aircraft wise the Cats' are one of Iran's best assets.

I don't think anyone - Iran included - has any illusions about a conventional armed confrontation with the West. Even in a best case scenario where they had luck, strategy, tactics, and logistics all in their favor (which would require some significant setbacks, use of airspace and land challenges, and just generally atrocious errors on the part of Western forces and planners,) they would still eventually lose their air defenses, then their air superiority, and then their forces and installations on the ground would be fair game. And then finally somewhere in that process their command and control would be targeted.

But as others have pointed out, the real issue is asymmetrical tactics. They have the ability to harass and even sink ships in the straights. They have Hezbollah (upon the rear of which Al Qaeda isn't even a pimple, so we should be concerned about that in my opinion.) And if they really wanted to go balls out, there is a chance - however probable or improbable - that they could use their newest anti-ship capabilities to sink some enemy ships. (Of course, that would result in significant retaliation in my opinion, rendering it a moot point ultimately.)

In my opinion their only viable, long term strategy is to suck up the air strikes as best they can and then unleash Hezbollah on Israel and various Western nations as a terrorist threat far greater than anything Al Qaeda was ever capable of inflicting. That would be their best bet for inflicting casualties on their enemies, and for turning Western sentiment and support against the allied war effort. That, and any occupation of Iran proper (which I think is unlikely unless they really ever do go all out and try to fight a war against the West in response to air strikes or something) would be an even longer, bloodier, more chaotic, harder fought slog than Iraq ever was. That too creates more opportunities for Iran to wage asymmetrical guerilla warfare. They could extract a heavy price in casualties through such tactics.

But conventionally? Forget about it, in my opinion. Like Iraq, it would be over quickly (not as quickly, but quickly nonetheless in my opinion.) And if it came down to "regime change" and boots on the ground, at least conventionally, they wouldn't survive as a regime. Not in any central, intact fashion at least. But assymetrically, they have the capability to inflict a lot of damage and casualties. And not just inside Iran.

Let us hope we never come to finding this out. A true war with Iran would result in many deaths and has the potential to destabilize the entire region... perhaps the world, though I find that less likely personally. (At least at this point.) Right now I think Iran is just saber rattling. Much of it seems to be purely for domestic consumption in my view. But I am increasingly concerned that the West may have adopted a zero tolerance doctrine toward any ME actor developing a nuclear capability of any kind, and that Iran may have adopted a doctrine of acquiring one no matter the cost because they legitimately calculate that a nuclear deterrent is a prerequisite for their survival. My concern is that while it appears neither side (for now at least) expects or has a strategic interest in a confrontation imminently, those two doctrines are not compatible and may lead to one automatically anyway.

I.e. Iran: "We won't stop until we develop a deterrent" + West: "If any ME actor is about to develop a nuclear capability, we have no choice but to strike" = automatic war. Lets hope not. I want to make it clear that this hypothesis and musing on my part should not be interpreted as an endorsement of military action. I always oppose war and conflict for any reason. I do not want to see this happen, and as of right now, I have no compelling reason to assume it will. But I am concerned. And my concern, while skeptical, is higher now than it was in years past.

What would be the cost for some American county, to buy an f4 and drone-ize it?

Also, what classic fighters might be reproducible and how would these fare in a dogfight with a modern drone? How would a P-38 Lightning or a P-51 Mustang for example, fare against a Globalhawk? I understand drones are not made to dogfight, so fielding actual warplanes perhaps warplanes with thrust vector, might produce some good drone kills on behalf of the human race?

In fighting Skynet, which is now the single most important thing for Earthlings to start doing, what classic airplanes can be produced and drone-ized to go up and fight to Fed/Israeli drone fleet of 2015 America?

What about the classic planes we already build like the F-86 or F-100 Sabres. Can't we take out the old engine and simple insert a thrust vectored engine and thereby make the old planes turn better and thereby become drone fighters on behalf of humans?

One thing is for sure: The 30k drones Obama and the US DoD just ordered, will not serve the people of the US. These will spy on and drop malware bombs/agents and machines, as terminator war begins

www.activistpost.com...

Therefore since each nation of 2012 and of 2015, has their own people as the thing they fear most, don't the people have a right to try and resist the Terminators and HK's? I say yes, humans have a right to prevent Skynet from its goals, and any humans who build or assist Skynet, are enemies of their species. Just my opinion.

But seriously, what other classic US planes could become cheap drones? Brainstorm with me here people, Skynet has been invoked and it owns the US Congress.

Reports saying Israel may use EMP bombs on Iran.

I really don't care if they have Buck Roger spaceships, it all depends on how much training and flying time their pilots are getting.

They can have top of the line aircraft, but if their pilots fly 4 hours a month, they'll be a pink mist in the air to any other pilot flying something older.

And don't forget maintenance. How well are they being maintained? I have a hunch that PDMs and maintenance windows aren't being followed as close as they are in the West.

Russia will probably have a lot of explaining to do when the Americans realise Iran have 200 Sukhoi's lol.

Originally posted by Luke.S
I wouldn't discount the Tomcats just yet. The Tomcats which are owned by Iran have been reversed engineered and upgraded through the years using Russian parts. The Radars are the most powerful ever housed in a fighter jet and even still have not been matched. They can fire a volley of six missiles in one go. They can act as a highly agile AWACS, the Tomcats, as long as they are in the hands of skilled pilots, could given modern jets a bloody good run for their money. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were closer to 35 operational. Aircraft wise the Cats' are one of Iran's best assets.

The U.S F-14 with the phoneix missiles could track 6 targets at once.
I'm not sure if that ability was retained in the export models we sold to Iran.
They would need the avionics package and the ability to reproduce the missiles.
(after doing some reading it seems even the U.S. Navy never used 6 phoenix missiles at once due to weight)
Plus those airframes are getting old.
Even the U.S. Airforce F-15's are falling part from metal fatigue.
Also the Iranian pilots may not get enough real flight time and real air to air training because of th age and
Operational cost of running a F-14 per hour.

reply to post by haven123


honestly nukes are not going to be used now or ever again, governments realize that using Nukes is pure stupidity and would just bring on a nuclear holocaust followed by a nuclear winter and then game over man do not pass go do not collect $200

also yea it doesnt matter how many AA missiles they have, they don't have the radar capabilities to find stealth bombers and fighters, the US and allies will have major air superiority in hours if war comes about

Originally posted by Ixtab
Russia will probably have a lot of explaining to do when the Americans realise Iran have 200 Sukhoi's lol.

It may be hard to figure out what they are while they are burning on the runway.

Again I ask: If Americans are "free", then shouldn't they be allowed to have their own drones, controlled by the people themselves?

I also have to ask, "Will ATS ever be useful to humanity?"

Wow, just a punchdrunk lot here. Too fatigued to even observe the birth of Skynet. You all must be totally demoralized to sit there while this # goes down.

Again I ask, if America is the home of the free and brave, then why can't citizens buy their own classic planes and make drones of them? The F4 was complete paid and designed by Amercian tax dollars, therefore, it is ours, we OWN IT.

We the people, own all the classic planes. We own every military plane the US ever made. We own EVERY BOLT ever designed by our military, because we paid for it.

It's key for the old planes to be destroyed of course, weapons must be destroyed lest the fall into the hands of the enemy. The enemy of the new drone army, is you.

Drones, Privacy, and Air Rights

Kenneth Anderson • February 19, 2012 9:47 am

By now many will have seen the news stories reporting how an animal rights group sent up a small drone with cameras attached to take video of a group of hunters out on a pigeon shoot. The hunters responded to the drone by shooting it down. Like many in the blogosphere, I was mostly amused, and tweeted that no one seemed to have told the animal rights group that the first rule of drone warfare is … establish air superiority. Okay. We also have many other stories of private organizations – NGOs of one kind or another, as well as commercial enterprises (leave aside the fact that FAA regulations currently permit only hobbyist use of UAVs) – using, or attempting to use, drones in order to monitor various activities that they find objectionable. Some of this takes place in the United States, some of it over public land and some of it over private land, and some of it takes place outside the US, including attempts to monitor whaling at sea.

These private activities, whether by advocacy groups or commercial enterprises or just ordinary individuals, conducted over private property raise important questions that will have to answered one way or another. One is whether it is lawful for a private party to conduct surveillance from the air over private property. If it is, then a further question is whether countermeasures – and what kinds – might also be lawful. One can always move indoors, and then we will have further, technology-driven debates over what kinds of sensors would be lawful that might permit private parties to “see” inside buildings. We might envision “passive” countermeasures, such as jamming devices – about which the FCC and other regulatory agencies might have something to say. We might have active countermeasures – shoot it down – about which, presumably, law enforcement and other agencies might also have something to say.

Americans are the least free people on Earth. They are free to behave according to the plot, but if they really try to be free, "they will find themselves involved in the most ruinous destructive war they've ever known." I am paraphrasing Rothschild circa 1812 when they burned down the White House. Point is, Americans have not yet awoken to the falseness of their nation anthem. They don't yet see their chains, and even when those chains are flying at 30k feet unseen, yet seeing, many Americans will choose to 'believe' that they are free. Interesting how the human mind works, isn't it?

reply to post by michael1983l


Is it just me or do we ALWAYS pick a fight with countries that cannot even come close to us in terms of military hardware?

We want to attack because they MAY have nukes? The Iranian airforce is using F-4's and MiGs circa 1966 are they really a threat to us?

T-72-85's for tanks Vs. an M1a2 Abrams? Really?

Or a US infantry with night vision or infared goggles, bulletproof lightweight vest, TONS of training (and now thanks to Afganistan and Iraq) battle experiance, AND the best lasers to drop smart bombs and artillary. VS what? a few thousand guys with AK's and grenades? maybe some up-to-date gear for the Loyalist forces? bah!

Truth is, when WE invade IF they have a nuke.... best chances..... Kamikazi. Wait for a sedge like Bagdad or Tekreet the BOOOM mushroomcloud.

OR Russia and China come out swinging... Then is MiGs circa 2011/2012 from Russia and Chinese Stealth fighters

AND since Lockheed and McDonald-Douglas moved the factories where our planes are made to..... CHINA.
ALL planes we lose cannot be replaced! if WWII taught us anything, is to KEEP MAKING STUFF to repair or replace lost items in combat.

Along with our Anti-IED ACP's, Humvees, 1/3 of an M1A2's CPU combat system and on and on...... we will be digging ourselves a shallow grave for Uncle Sam.

You can fit a 2012 spec F1 engine into a Model T Ford if you really want to. You can take a Sopwith Camel and fit a Rolls Royce Merlin into it. You can slap a turbocharger onto a sports bike. What makes you think that Iranian engineers have left their fighters in the same condition they bought them in from the US? Airframes are how they sound...Frames! You can update all electronics including weapons systems at your leisure. All these dumb comments about how the Iranian arsenals are soooo old school are getting quite annoying. If and when we do engage them...We're in for a shock. Plus, these days the aircraft don't matter all that much. This is primarily going to be a Naval/Missile war. I doubt the USAF/RAF will see too many dogfights!

It will not be easy for Israel to covertly launch numerous large strike packages to ensure surprise, recently a NY times article suggested over a hundred aircraft would be required due to;

Numerous targets
Hardened targets
Strike package protection for AAW/SEAD etc.
Tanker aircraft
Tanker protection aircraft required
Reserve

And of course only limited weapons per aircraft and numerous weapons required per target to ensure enough "effect", this would be a very large operation if carried out in a single strike to ensure surprise, and a very long operation if smaller numbers of aircraft are used (discounting likely US assistance), which would alert Iranian defenses to ongoing attack.

Israel has a large population with access to the internet in many different ways, not all of whom will be on the same side, the roar of hundreds of aircraft taking to the sky's one after another after another after another (heavily laden and climbing slowly) will surely alert the internet to such a strike.

Of course they may of thought of this already, if the internet were taken down in Israel it would make reporting harder to achieve through this way, a better way would be if Israeli internet, and perhaps a few other select countries, could claim to be the victim of an external event, under cover of virtual darkness perhaps then the jets could launch;

rt.com...

rt.com...