Iran to buy Pechora-2A
jackehammond
Active member
Dear Members,
I can not figure out why the Iranians would want to acquire what is basically an updated SA-3???? The SA-3 has never performed well in combat in the past. The Russians now have far superior SAMs than the SA-3 type. Makes no sense.
Also, the Iraqis had more than just the SA-2 when the Iraqi nuclear reactor was hit. For one they had the French Roland which is an extremely deadly low level system which the US air forces had an extremely healthy respect for during the Gulf War 1991.
Finally, as to Israel striking the Iranian nuclear facilities. It is not a question of the Iranian air defense systems. It is a matter of logistics. Yes the Israelis pulled off that one strike in the 1980s. But at that time the Saudis were not up and running on their AWACs and they could use Saudi Arabia as an air corridor. And the ranges were far less than those against today's Iranian targets from Israel. But what air route would they use? Forget about flying over Iraq even. They have to pass some how over either Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Turkey (ie I can't see them flying all the way down the Red Sea and then loop back up the Persian Gulf as the ranges would be unbelievable). Flying over either nation would result in a state of quasi-war with Israel to avoid a full scale war with Iran. The most likely route (which I doubt) would be in a deal with Kenya (ie the Black nonMuslim Africans have an intense dislike for the Arab/Persian/Pakistan Moslem world) as with the Enteebee raid. But I have no doubt that Iran has made it clear to any nation thinking about helping Israel that while Israel, Kuwait and US forces have a good ABM system (ie the Arrow and PAC III) they don't.
Jack E. Hammond
I can not figure out why the Iranians would want to acquire what is basically an updated SA-3???? The SA-3 has never performed well in combat in the past. The Russians now have far superior SAMs than the SA-3 type. Makes no sense.
Also, the Iraqis had more than just the SA-2 when the Iraqi nuclear reactor was hit. For one they had the French Roland which is an extremely deadly low level system which the US air forces had an extremely healthy respect for during the Gulf War 1991.
Finally, as to Israel striking the Iranian nuclear facilities. It is not a question of the Iranian air defense systems. It is a matter of logistics. Yes the Israelis pulled off that one strike in the 1980s. But at that time the Saudis were not up and running on their AWACs and they could use Saudi Arabia as an air corridor. And the ranges were far less than those against today's Iranian targets from Israel. But what air route would they use? Forget about flying over Iraq even. They have to pass some how over either Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Turkey (ie I can't see them flying all the way down the Red Sea and then loop back up the Persian Gulf as the ranges would be unbelievable). Flying over either nation would result in a state of quasi-war with Israel to avoid a full scale war with Iran. The most likely route (which I doubt) would be in a deal with Kenya (ie the Black nonMuslim Africans have an intense dislike for the Arab/Persian/Pakistan Moslem world) as with the Enteebee raid. But I have no doubt that Iran has made it clear to any nation thinking about helping Israel that while Israel, Kuwait and US forces have a good ABM system (ie the Arrow and PAC III) they don't.
Jack E. Hammond
irate:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I'd go to the moon first and then drop a large rock on their heads. Probably cheaper that trying to find an open corridor for the attack.
jackehammond
Active member
Marwan said:
Dear Member,
In debates on the good military forums (ie of which this is one of them) the number one rule is this: Attack the message all you want, but do not attack the messenger. Their can be no rational debate, discussion, exchange of information, etc. if this rule is ignored.
Also, every member has the right to politely disagree. Would you not agree? Or is your version of freedom of the press and freedom of speech only for those facts and opinions you agree with. Even the Prophet of Islam disagrees if you believe that?
Jack E. Hammond
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml
http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f-14.htm
Navy Missile Downs Iranian Jetliner
By George C. Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 4, 1988; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight801/stories/july88crash.htm
Absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA anywhere about any Iranian F14 being shot down by anything other than Iraqi missiles and an Iraqi MIG during their dirty little war. Only an F4. The only reported F14 shoot-down was this faux pas when the Airbus got shot down by the Vincennes by accident.
Marwan might be lacking in tact but he's got his facts straight.
Last edited:
phoenix80
Banned
these scores are just useless propaganda from the baathist iraqis
at least 3-4 IRIAF F-14As were downed by friendly fire or mechanical failure
http://www.irandefence.net/archive/index.php/t-106.html
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_452.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
Within the first six months of the war Iranian F-14s scored over 50 air-to-air victories, mainly against Iraqi MiG-21s and MiG-23s, but some also against Su-20/22s. In exchange, only a single F-14A was damaged - by debris from a MiG-21 that exploded in front of it.
The war between Iraq and Iran subsequently turned into a war of attrition, with lengthy breaks - used by both sides for reorganization and resupply of their military power - between short periods of extremely bitter and bloody fighting. Eventually, by the spring of 1982 the Iranians managed to throw Iraqi troops back to the international border, and from that time on Iran was in strategic offensive, which was eventually to last until the early 1988.
These 2 chart says it better
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml
well, regarding the F-14 shot down by the Americans, I know the guy in person (his father was killed) and we are close friends!
I have his picture if you want to see
I know an Iranian F-14A ace who had 7 confirmed 2 probable kills under his belt. he died 3 years ago in a road accident though (his name was General Zandi)
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Jalal+zandi&meta=
Major Jalal Zandi , an F-14 pilot, shot down 9 Iraqi fighters throughout the war, making him the most accomplished F-14 pilot in the world, and one of the greatest jet fighter aces in history. He died of a heart attack in 2001 (road accident). Normally, a pilot is not put into combat for more than 6 months to 1 year (the longest tours were in Vietnam and Korea). Pilots like Major Zandi fought for eight years, against an enemy over 6 times their size!
Major Yadollah Javadpour is one of the most accomplished F-5 pilots in the world, and flew in the Acrojet team founded by General Jahanbani. The F-5 is a light, low cost fighter, and Major Javadpour shot down 5 Iraqi fighters, making him one of the prominent jet fighter aces in history. One of his victims was the Mig-25, the world’s fastest fighter, and at the time the Russians’ most advanced fighter, flown by Colonel Rayyan, Iraq’s top fighter pilot. The downing of a fighter like the Mig-25 by an F-5 is unprecedented in the history of air combat, and Major Javadpour has become a legend in the worldwide F-5 pilot community.
http://www.iiaf.net/iiafmisc/announcements/announcements.html
Last edited:
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Rabs said:
Oil can also be used to make plastic of fuel cars. That's why it's better to rely on nuclear power for generating electrticity, because uranium doesn't have many more uses than that.
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
jackehammond said:
How come the coalition lost so few planes to Roland then? Did the Iraqis not have enough Rolands to cover wide areas and the coalition air forces simply avoided the areas covered by Rolands?
I think the Roland is German-French, not just French, and is one of the AA missiles weapons Germany relies on, along with some old Patriots and Hawks. Germany is also involved in the MEADS project.
jackehammond
Active member
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Dear Member,
They basically avoided going low where the Roland had coverage. In fact an A-10A crossed in to an area where a Roland firing unit had been moved and was shot down I believe loosing the pilot. The orginal Roland was French and then the Germans joined the program. The Roland supplied to Iraqi were an export version manufactured totally in France because of German arms export laws.
To the other member. ECCM does not work well against the Roland in the non-radar firing mode. The Roland is radio controlled by a very narrow beam and the recieving antennas (ie like the Rapier) face rearward and are hard to jam.
Jack E. Hammond
major liability
Active member
It would be expensive as hell in both money and collateral damage, but I think a veritable SWARM of hundreds of simultaneously launched cruise missiles could reduce their armies to a few guys with AKs pretty quick.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Underlying thing this comes back to: Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
1.) Iran did sign it.
2.) If Iran wants to enrich Uranium for 100% peaceful purposes, more power to them. But because Enriched Uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons, it is Iran's responsibility to prove that they are not breaking the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Constant unrestricted monitoring by impartial/neutral overseers would be a sufficient act of good faith to make the rest of the world a lot less nervous about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
3.) If Iran is even remotely suspected of having a nuclear warhead or even the capability to make one, every nation in the Middle East will immediately scramble to develop their own nuclear weapons, just to protect themselves.
4.) Suddenly, we have a dozen-odd new nations with nukes. That makes a dozen-odd new possible "OOPS!!!" scenarios: The kind that touch off nuclear exchange/holocaust and EVERYBODY ON THIS EARTH DIES.
4.) It is in the best interests of every nation in the world to not blast the human race into extinction.
5.) All of that is exactly why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is there to begin with.
So my question would be: Is Iran willing to take steps to PROVE that they're not working on making a nuclear weapon??
BTW, I think several people are being discourteous to Marwan. Marwan was not exactly courteous in his response. Can't we all just get along??
1.) Iran did sign it.
2.) If Iran wants to enrich Uranium for 100% peaceful purposes, more power to them. But because Enriched Uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons, it is Iran's responsibility to prove that they are not breaking the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Constant unrestricted monitoring by impartial/neutral overseers would be a sufficient act of good faith to make the rest of the world a lot less nervous about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
3.) If Iran is even remotely suspected of having a nuclear warhead or even the capability to make one, every nation in the Middle East will immediately scramble to develop their own nuclear weapons, just to protect themselves.
4.) Suddenly, we have a dozen-odd new nations with nukes. That makes a dozen-odd new possible "OOPS!!!" scenarios: The kind that touch off nuclear exchange/holocaust and EVERYBODY ON THIS EARTH DIES.
4.) It is in the best interests of every nation in the world to not blast the human race into extinction.
5.) All of that is exactly why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is there to begin with.
So my question would be: Is Iran willing to take steps to PROVE that they're not working on making a nuclear weapon??
BTW, I think several people are being discourteous to Marwan. Marwan was not exactly courteous in his response. Can't we all just get along??
Last edited:
phoenix80
Banned
NO! They have been hiding their nukes for 18 years and the mad mullahs can not and shouldnt be trusted at all!
Once they acquire the nukes, they will use it against their own people first, then Israelis and Americans!
No Nukes for Mad People!
Once they are overthrown and a responsible and friendly government takes place (like the Shah's era) then Iranians can decide if they need nukes for peaceful purposes or not!
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
godofthunder9010 said:
I'm with you till this one bruv. Correct me if I am wrong but when a nation is a theocracy whose religion states the easiest ticket to paradise is dying in a Jihad your logic falls short. At least according to my understanding and I'm still reading so I am far from infallible.
localgrizzly
Active member
\Marwan said:
Check ypour facts,sir. NO F117 has EVER been shot down, by ANYONE.