Iranian Naval Power-As of 2007 [Archive]

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 07:09 PM

Credit to Iran Military Forum.com

LARGER WARSHIPS (CORVETTES etc)

Units
1 x Mowj Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built
3 x Alvand Class, Iranian Navy, British built.
1x Hamzeh Class, Iranian Navy, Dutch built
2 x Bayandor Class, Iranian Navy, US built (gun armed, not illustrated)

Alvand Class Corvette
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8354/alvandsidezy9.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Displacement: 1,540 tons full load
Dimensions: L 94.5m, W 11.7m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: 135
Speed: 40kt
Powerplant: 2 x Gas Turbines 23,000 shp plus two diesels 1900hp
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 114mm Gun, 1 dual 35mm (manned) 3 x (manned) GAM-BO1 20mm cannon, 1 x Limbo ASW mortar (may be inoperable), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes (Alvand only), 2 x 12.7mm HMGs (manned).

Of 1960s vintage, the remaining Alvand class corvettes have been partially rearmed most crucially with the generally capable C-802 anti-ship missile in place of the obsolete Sea Killer missiles.

Sensor fit and air defences are very poor by contemporary standards and the survivability of these boats in open conflict is seriously open to doubt.

Moudge Class Corvette
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1989/mowjsidejg8.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 1,400 tons
Dimensions: L 94m, W 10m, Dr 3.25m (Actual dimensions may be almost exactly as per Alvand)
Crew: ??? (est 100+)
Speed: 28kt
Powerplant: 2 x 10,000hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 CIWS (20mm, indigenous?), 1 x dual AAA (35mm?), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes
Helicopters: Landing pad only

Also commonly spelt Mowj and Mowaj, this indigenous corvette is essentially a reverse engineered Vosper Mk 5 (Alvand Class, see above). It has several Iranian adaptations, most significantly a purely diesel power pack which results in a significant drop in performance.

Another conspicuous difference is the addition of a helipad on the aft deck, requiring a repositioning of the anti-ship missiles to amidships. Above the bridge is what appears to be a CIWS similar to the US 20mm Phalanx. However at the rear of the ship the AAA appears to be a twin turret, possibly manned 35mm as on the Alvand class. The main gun is a reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mm automatic, an excellent general purpose medium gun albeit somewhat behind the current OTO Melara versions.

Unlike most contemporary corvettes, the Moudge does not feature a radar signature reducing hull form. In all fairness the air defences appear to be a significant improvement over the Alvands, but still someway short of the current norm for warships this size.

The Moudge does not appear to have an ASW sonar.

Hamzeh Corvette
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7920/joshankd7.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 580 tons
Dimensions: L 52m, W 7.65m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: ??
Speed: 15kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1,300hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x main gun (20mm?), 2 x 12.7mm manned heavy machine guns

Originally the Government Yacht, the Hamzeh has been modified to carry C-802 anti-ship missiles and light defences. Main role probably remains training. The boat operates in the Caspian Sea alongside the SINA missile boats. Confusingly the first widespread pictures of her post-refit where accompanying an Iranian press article announcing the entry into service of the SINA type “corvette” Joshan, causing some confusion as to this boat’s identity. The pennant number appears to have changed also.

Despite a popular press photo showing an AB-212 helicopter, the Hamzeh does not appear to have a helipad.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 07:10 PM

FAST ATTACK CRAFT (Missile/Torpedo)

Operational Units:
6 Kaman Class, Iranian Navy, French Built. (10 hulls)
10 Thondar (Houdong) Class, IRGC-N, Chinese built.
2 SINA Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built (1 hull awaiting fitting out)
10 IPS-18 Tir Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
10 IPS-16 Peykaap Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
3+ Taedong-B/C class(s), ????, North Korean built
10 (est) C-14 “China Cat” class, ????, Chinese designed (locally built)

IPS-18 Tir Class Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/883/stealthboat1amd5.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 28.16 tons
Dimensions: L 21.12m, W 5.77m, Dr 0.87m H 2.1m
Crew: 6
Endurance: 450nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 3 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes, 1 x manned 12.7mm HMG

Of North Korean origin, these innovative small fast attack boats are clearly designed with radar cross-section reduction in mind. A retractable radar mast further enhances their ability to hide amongst the clutter of small fishing boats and otherwise inconspicuous minor radar reflections. The stealthiness does not extend to the infrared spectrum though, with raw exhausts venting out of the rear of the boat. Nor is the only defensive weapons position well thought out in this regard, being a single pedestal mounted 12.7mm heavy machine gun which is externally crewed.

In the right circumstances these boats represent a serious threat, but they have limited sea keeping, endurance and sensors thus limiting their combat potential in a wider conflict.

They are potentially armed with Shkval rocket torpedo (range about 6-8km), or the Iranian YT534W1 modern heavyweight torpedo (estimated range about 20-30km), but quite possibly employ very basic unguided torpedoes.

IPS-16 “Peykaap” Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7352/peykaapjm5.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 13.75 tons
Dimensions: L 16.3m, W 3.75m, Dr 0.67m H 1.93m
Crew: 3
Endurance: 320nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 324mm (12.75”) torpedo tubes, small-arms

Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous, the Paykaap is easily perceived as the little brother to the Tir class (see above) because it has similar origin and overall characteristics but is smaller and lighter armed.

It appears to have stealth characteristics although little attention has been paid to the IR spectrum. The torpedo tubes are mounted on either side of the cabin in a stealthy fairing. The slight bulge on top of the torpedo tubes is probably the compressed air cylinder used to eject the torpedo from the tube, and its position makes it very possible that the torpedo tubes are exactly the same as those on the Taedong-B (illustrated above).

The small size, high speed and low radar signature make this type a potent adversary, but it lacks any meaningful self-defence weaponry should an enemy attempt to engage it. Its lightweight torpedoes are probably inadequate to sink most warships.

Semi-submersible Fast Attack Craft

Quantity in service: 3 (est)
1 x Taedong-B “Kajami”
2 x Taedong-C “Gahjae”

Iran is reported to operate a small number of North Korean designed Taedong-B and Taedong-C semi-submersible attack craft delivered in 2002. At least one such boat, thought to be a Taedong-B “Kajami”, has been publicly displayed during war-games. This appearance substantiates previous media reports but beyond that much remains speculation.

Both types are believed to be equipped with lightweight 324mm (12.75”) torpedoes. Typical torpedoes in this size class have a range of between 6km and 10km. It is extremely unlikely that these boats will be refitted with the larger Shkval rocket torpedo or anti-ship missiles.

It is not clear whether the attack profiles of these boats is to lay in wait submerged and then attack at high speed on the surface, or vice versa to approach at high speed then submerge for the final stage of the attack. The boats can probably dive to about 3m depth using a snort mast which remains on/near the surface. The vessel is probably capable of about 40kts on the surface and about 10kts submerged.

Taedong-B:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4343/taedongfg4.jpg

It is reported that the Taedong-C class closely resembles the Peykaap class torpedo boat, and it may be that the Peykaap is itself the submersible boat, although that seems unlikely.

Although these boats offer some novel tactical opportunities for Iran, they are unlikely to be successful if operating against larger warships armed with their own anti-submarine torpedoes, or fast moving targets. The lightweight torpedoes are unlikely to sink even a modest warship although obviously a successful attack could immobilize even a large warship.

“China Cat” Fast Attack Craft (Missile)
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6044/chinacatsp3.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10 +
Displacement: 19 tons
Dimensions: L 13.65m, W 4.8m, Dr 0.7m
Crew: 10
Endurance: 300nm
Speed: 55kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1150hp
Armament: 4 x TL-10 or C-701 Kowsar light anti-ship missiles, 1 x manned cannon (20mm?)

10 C-14 missile armed catamarans were ordered from Chinese manufacturer CSSC in 2002, with local production. At least one vessel has been completed in a non-missile configuration and the type is offered in the Iranian defence industry’s export catalogue. The missile equipped boats appear to differ in detail from the CSSC demonstrators with a different (lesser) sensor fit.

The C-701 missile is of Chinese origin though manufactured under license in Iran. It has a 20-25km range and can be TV or Radar guided, making it ideal for littoral combat.

Many reports indicate that the China Cat may employ the Chinese supplied TL-10 anti-ship missile instead of the C-701 described above. The two missile types are generally similar in overall size and capability, albeit different designs. Both come with a range of seekers and minor sub-versions tailored to specific customer needs.

The boats pack an enormous punch for their size and have apparently superb sea keeping for their size (though by no means ocean going vessels), but their air defence is conspicuously lacking.

SINA Class Missile Boat
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8751/sinasidetn6.jpg
Quantity: 2 (plus 1 building)
Displacement: 300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: ??? (est 31)
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed)

The first SINA class boat, Peykan, became operational in 2006 followed by a second unit, Joshan. Reverse engineered Combattante-II (Kaman class) boats the only obvious external difference is the main radar.

The 76mm is a locally produced version of the OTO-Melara 76mm gun fitted to the Kamans.

Kaman Class Missile Boat
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/2761/kamanside3dw5.jpg
Quantity in service: 6 (est). (10 total hulls still available)
Displacement: 275-300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: 31
Speed: 36kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed).

Delivered from France and previously equipped with US supplied Harpoon missiles, these boats were re-armed with the Chinese C-802 missile in the late 1990s. 10 hulls remain but only 6 are thought to be operational. One has been used for tests, being at one time equipped with Standard SM-1 missiles.

Thondar Class Missile Boat
http://i13.tinypic.com/67wykqu.jpg
Quantity in service: 10
Displacement: 205 tons
Dimensions: L 33.6m, W 7.6m, Dr 2.7m
Crew: 28
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 3 x 8,000bhp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x twin 30mm AAA, 1 x twin 23mm AAA (crewed)

Often referred to by their Chinese name, Houdong class, these boats were delivered from China in the mid 1990s, and are operated by the IRGC-N.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 07:12 PM

SUBMARINES

Operational Units:
3 x Kilo Class SSK, Iranian Navy, Russian built (not illustrated)
3 x Ghadir class SSC, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Nahong class SSM, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Al Sabehat 15 SDV, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built

Ghadir Class Midget Submarine
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4538/ghadirul6.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Dimensions: L 29m, W 2.75m
Displacement : 120 tons dived
Crew: ?
Endurance: ?
Speed (est): 11kts surfaced, 8kts submerged
Powerplant: Diesel-electric
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes with 2~4 torpedoes, Skhval rocket torpedoes or 4~8 mines. Possibly submarine launched anti-ship missiles but unsubstantiated.

Possibly of North Korean design, the Ghadir (Qadir) submarine closely resembles the North Korean “Yugo Class”, itself a derivative of Yugoslavian (now Croatian) types. One noteworthy feature is that the Ghadir appears to have conventional cruciform tail fins. Estimates of the size of this submarine vary greatly.

These boats are credible littoral submarines well suited to mine laying, infiltration/Special Forces operation and limited anti-surface warfare. Their torpedo tubes could conceivably carry the Shkval rocket torpedo or even submarine launched anti-ship missiles which Iran reportedly has. But their sensor fit is almost certainly basic by contemporary standards limiting their potential against other subs and advanced warships. There is also no reason to suppose that they are particularly quiet and the shallow water of the Gulf is likely to leave them exposed to anti-submarine warfare.

Nahong Class midget submarine[/u]
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7533/nahong1er6.jpg

Quantity in service: 1

A small midget submarine suited to mine laying and special operations with possible limited anti-ship strike capability. Armament is likely to consist of mines carried externally although it is possible that 533mm torpedoes could also be carried in this manner as is the case with similar submarines in WW2.

Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping.

Believed to be operational in Caspian sea but not verified.

[b]”Al Sabehat 15” Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (Submersible)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1757/minisdvsf8.jpg

Quantity in service: 1(?)
Length: 8m
Crew: 2 + up to 7 additional divers
Weapons: up to 17 Limpet mines

A small “chariot” design typical of special forces insertion vehicles, the type is only suitable for coastal operations.

Can be launched from a ship or under-slung from a large helicopter (Sea King, Mi-8 Hip or Chinook).

-----------------------------------------------

BOGHAMMARS

Small craft, often based on civilian speed boats. Lightly armed with machine guns, MRLS, AAA, RPG or mines.

Example:

MIG-G-0900 (Boghammar)
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/815/migg0900af7.jpg
Quantity: 20
Displacement: 6.4 tons
Dimensions: L 9.3m, W 3.45m, Dr 0.6m
Crew: 3
Endurance: ??
Speed: 25kt+
Powerplant: 2 x 1260hp
Armament: Typically 1 x 12.7mm HMG and 1x12 107mm rocket launcher (MRLS).

Typically of locally produced small boats that have been adapted for warfare, often being labeled as “Boghammars”. The MIG-G-0900 is reportedly a catamaran, and comes in several variants including a mini-passenger ferry. The military/paramilitary version is typically equipped with a 107mm MRLS.

The MRLS is probably the Iranian produce “Haseb”, a derivative of the Chinese designed Type-73 which has an effective range of 8.5km and has a HE-Fragmentation warheads. The rocket weighs 18.8kg rocket including the 8.3kg TNT warhead (or 6.4kg blast –fragmentation warhead), which produces a 12.5m blast radius. A 12 round salvo is fired in 8 seconds. It is not known whether the weapons mount is gyrostabilised for accuracy – if not accuracy would likely be appalling.

Alternative armaments include RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades or 106mm recoilless rifle.

These boats have an advantage in their small size and relative similarity to civilian types allowing them to hide among legitimate civilian fishing fleets. However their weapons are too light to be a serious concern to military vessels.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 07:13 PM

SHORE BATTERIES (Anti-Ship Missile)

Operational Units:
100+ C-802/C-802A Noor
100+ HY-2 “Silkworm”
?? C-701T/C-701R “Kosar”
?? TL-10 “Kosar” (possibly only ship launched units)
?? Ra’ad, Iranian designed

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8748/missilesfa0.png

C-802/C802A Noor
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3338/c802sidecamoxo8.jpg
Range: 120-180km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 3
Vehicle: Truck

Iran deploys C-802s using a Chinese designed truck launcher with up to three missile boxes which are fired over the left side of the trailer. A command shelter is mounted forward of the missile turntable. The truck itself may be locally sourced, possible an Iveco.

The C-802 family is the most potent of Iran’s anti-ship missiles being credited with generally good anti-jamming capabilities and high hit probability.

Third party targeting and mid-course update is required to hit targets over about 60km away.

”Kosar”
Also romanised “Kowsar”, this name refers to several short ranged anti-ship missile types of Chinese origin that Iran is producing. Clearly Iran is producing versions of both the C-701 and TL-10 families of missiles. Both types come in both TV and Radar seeker versions, with Infrared seekers rumored.

Both have generally similar capabilities although the C-701 is longer ranged and its radar version, unlike the TL-10 radar version, can accept post-launch re-targeting.

The TL-10 is thought to be employed on the China Cat missile boats whereas the C-701 has been showcased as a shore battery system in recent wargames. Both families are capable of shore, ship, helicopter and jet launch.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2527/c701vtl10abj9.jpg

C-701R quad launcher mounted on Iveco truck:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8777/c701sidekt4.jpg

Ra’ad
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7599/raadsidepa4.jpg
Range: 360km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 1
Vehicle: Tracked

Developed from the HY-2 “Silkworm”, the Ra’ad (Thunder) is Iran’s first truly indigenous anti-ship missile in the minds of many observers’. Although China has developed turbojet versions of the HY-2 family, this missile does not resemble them.

It is launched from an HY-2 launcher suggesting backwards compatibility with the obsolete HY-2. The turreted launcher in question is identical to North Korean ones.

Comparison of Ra’ad (bottom) with HY-2:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7962/hy2vraadnb4.jpg

The missile is claimed to have a 360km range which, given its huge fuel capacity, seems reasonable. Some estimates suggest that it is mildly supersonic but I think that’s unlikely. Another observation is that the missile is not radar stealthy (not that many are) – just pre-empting the claims that some might make. The large radome suggests an active-radar seeker.

HY-2 “Silkworm”
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/4636/silkwormside1gz7.jpg
Range: 95km
Maximum number of missiles per launch launcher: 1
Vehicle: Truck or trailer, possibly some tracked launchers

An old missile supplied by China and subsequently locally produce, the HY-2 is still in widespread service with the IRCG, in both trailer and truck mounted launchers. Despite the useful range and huge warhead, the HY-2 is relatively slow and high flying making it easier to see and shoot down.

Locally designed truck launcher:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3223/silkwormtruck1zd9.jpg

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 07:14 PM

AIRBORNE ANTI-SHIP CAPABILITY

Air Force (IRIAF)
32 x Su-24 Fencer, strike bomber, Russia

35 x F-4D/E Phantom-II, multi-role fighter, USA
10 x Mirage F-1, ground attack fighter, France (ex-Iraqi)

Iranian Navy
10~13 x SH-3D Sea King, helicopter, USA (28 delivered)
?? x Mil Mi-17 Hip (Naval), helicopter, Russia

12 x AB212, helicopter, Italy
3-5 P-3C Orion, maritime patrol aircraft, USA

Su-24 Fencer / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/2373/fencernoorzs0.jpg
Quantity in service: about 30. Not all may be upgraded to accept the Noor anti-ship missile
Missile: Possibly C-801K, or maybe a later version based on C-802.
Substantiation: Widely reported since mid-late 1990s, hard proof of capability remains elusive.

The Fencer is a very capable strike jet with credible avionics, well suited to maritime strike. If reports that it is operational with Noor anti-ship missiles are true then this represents are relatively potent capability.

Mil Mi-17 ‘Hip’ / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6553/mi17noorxt9.jpg
Quantity in service: ?
Missile: C-802 Noor

At least one test launch has been publicized, but operational status unclear. The Noor missile fitted to the Mi-17 is a modification of the ground launched version normally fired from a box launcher. This means that the launch booster and the pop-out folding fins are retained. An advantage of retaining the launch booster is slightly longer range and the ability to fire the missile at very slow speed or hover, but the down side is a rather heavy missile that must exist the helicopter very calmly to ensure that the fins don’t hit the fuselage or pylons when they pop-out split seconds after launch.

SH-3D Sea King / Sea Killer (Fajr-e-Darya)
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/589/sh3dhc6.jpg
Type: Light short range anti-ship missile, helicopter launched
Range: Approx 20km
Guidance: Electro-optical
Speed: Mach 0.8

The Italian designed Sea Killer anti-ship missile was supplied to Iran with the Vosper Mk5 corvettes but was withdrawn from service in the early 1990s (replaced by C-802). However the type resurfaced in the late 1990s as the indigenous Fajr-e Darya programme, reborn as a helicopter launched missile. The programme is thought to have benefited from Chinese assistance, sometimes described by the Chinese designation FL-6. Although the missile has been paraded publicly in recent years, and seen mounted on Iranian Navy SH-3D Sea King helicopters, it seems to have been eclipsed by the Chinese C-701 and TL-10 missile types (see Kosar above).

The missile closely resembles the Italian Marte Mk2 missile because they are both derived from the Sea Killer. The European missile uses an active radar seeker and is generally more capable.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 07:15 PM

????"Attack Submersible-X"????
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2244/sdv2gk1.jpg
Quantity in Service: ? 1
Dimensions: L 7m
Weight: (est) 3 tons (armed)
Crew: 2
Weapons: 21" (533mm) heavyweight torpedo, possibly type YT534W1

Recently paraded, this two man "wet sub" has a notch out of the bottom suggesting that it is designed to carry a single heavyweight torpedo semi-recessed. The two crew members use frogman apparatus. The clear nosecone appears to be for the driver to see where they are going when underwater, presumably crouched inside the hull. The small forward control planes are probably hand operated by the driver.

An interesting craft, it is not clear how the crew aim the torpedo with any degree of accuracy except at very short ranges.

s-300

05-14-2007, 07:58 PM

the iran navy is capable and in waters of the straith if there is war the are a force to respect

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 08:03 PM

the iran navy is capable and in waters of the straith if there is war the are a force to respect

Yes, I think this is because they will not do battle in conventional way, no, it is using guerilla naval warfare...

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:10 PM

Yes, I think this is because they will not do battle in conventional way, no, it is using guerilla naval warfare...

Guerilla naval warfare isn't a very good idea. Unlike humans ships are easily detectable with radar and in the water they have few places to run except back to port.

Despite common belief a ship can't launch a missile and run away without being seen, especially since it was probably seen before the missile was launched. The first stealth ships are just being made now by European countries and the US has some due out within a few years. Needless to say Iran is nowhere near that level, and it's ships aren't fast enough or stealthy enough to avoid becoming fish food.

Submarines are of course stealthy, but the US also has submarines which are leagues (pun intended) beyond in terms of stealthyness and weapon systems.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:16 PM

Guerilla naval warfare isn't a very good idea. Unlike humans ships are easily detectable with radar and in the water they have few places to run except back to port.

Despite common belief a ship can't launch a missile and run away without being seen, especially since it was probably seen before the missile was launched. The first stealth ships are just being made now by European countries and the US has some due out within a few years. Needless to say Iran is nowhere near that level, and it's ships aren't fast enough or stealthy enough to avoid becoming fish food.

Submarines are of course stealthy, but the US also has submarines which are leagues (pun intended) beyond in terms of stealthyness and weapon systems.

Yes this is true but I remember reading what US military say about Iran naval power. They say it has very strong potential, they say it is serious threat because of ability "to swarm". They said fast missile boats will be bad for US navy. And all this come from US military, not Iran military.

We will see what rocket powered mines will do, as well...

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:17 PM

Yes this is true but I remember reading what US military say about Iran naval power. They say it has very strong potential, they say it is serious threat because of ability "to swarm". They said fast missile boats will be bad for US navy. And all this come from US military, not Iran military.

We will see what rocket powered mines will do, as well...

I believe Burster already posted on the subject of the rocket mines. I don't remember where it is, but maybe he'll see this.

The swarm is always an issue. But you also have to consider that if it's the US admirals that have recognized the threat, they've also most likely come up with tactics to deal with it.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:24 PM

I believe Burster already posted on the subject of the rocket mines. I don't remember where it is, but maybe he'll see this.

The swarm is always an issue. But you also have to consider that if it's the US admirals that have recognized the threat, they've also most likely come up with tactics to deal with it.

If they have tactics to deal with it, then they should not be worried...

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:25 PM

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:25 PM

If they have tactics to deal with it, then they should not be worried...

It's always best to be prepared. It's good to be a little worried than reckless.

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:27 PM

Here, about mines:

"Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping."

The problem with these mines though is that they're unguided. That means that they aren't very accurate. A hit would do a lot of damage most likely, but the main fault is that they aren't guided at all. Plus they need to be triggered by something or they could end up either not going off or hitting the wrong ships.

Sinking a civilian ship by accident would not look good.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:29 PM

The problem with these mines though is that they're unguided. That means that they aren't very accurate. A hit would do a lot of damage most likely, but the main fault is that they aren't guided at all. Plus they need to be triggered by something or they could end up either not going off or hitting the wrong ships.

Sinking a civilian ship by accident would not look good.

They have two option with these:

1.) They might have found way to guide them...
2.) They will lay mass amount of them, so it will guarantee many hits...

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:31 PM

They have two option with these:

1.) They might have found way to guide them...
2.) They will lay mass amount of them, so it will guarantee many hits...

That still doesn't help the FoF issue. (Friend or Foe).

They may find a way to guide them, but if they could be guided easily you'd probably see countries like the US and Russia stocking up. I guess they may have, I dunno, I just haven't heard of 'em before.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:32 PM

That still doesn't help the FoF issue. (Friend or Foe).

They may find a way to guide them, but if they could be guided easily you'd probably see countries like the US and Russia stocking up. I guess they may have, I dunno, I just haven't heard of 'em before.

Hm, yes this is true brother...then they must to be careful :biggrin1:
I do not see why civilian ship will be in the waters during war time in that area however.

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:34 PM

Hm, yes this is true brother...then they must to be careful :biggrin1:
I do not see why civilian ship will be in the waters during war time in that area however.

True, but you never know. If a war starts without much warning (hopefully it won't happen at all), civilian ships in the area could be caught in the crossfire as they try to leave.

It's not a good thing but it does happen.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:41 PM

True, but you never know. If a war starts without much warning (hopefully it won't happen at all), civilian ships in the area could be caught in the crossfire as they try to leave.

It's not a good thing but it does happen.

Yes this may happen. If Strait of Hormuz is closen, it will lessen this chance...

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:43 PM

Yes this may happen. If Strait of Hormuz is closen, it will lessen this chance...

Well, hopefully war will not happen. As long as Iran keeps it's nuclear program civil like they say and nothing bad happens, there will be no excuse for Cheney or Bush to start a war.

And by the end of 2008 Bush will be on his way out and we have something to look forward to.

Sajjad

05-14-2007, 10:46 PM

Well, hopefully war will not happen. As long as Iran keeps it's nuclear program civil like they say and nothing bad happens, there will be no excuse for Cheney or Bush to start a war.

And by the end of 2008 Bush will be on his way out and we have something to look forward to.

Yes, hope this will not happen insh'Allah. But, very easy for USA to come up with excuse, like with Iraq.

Oriellien

05-14-2007, 10:47 PM

I hope a Republican doesnt win in 2008, so far I havent seen any moderate republicans when it comes to foreign policy.

Kiaar

05-14-2007, 10:50 PM

Yes, hope this will not happen insh'Allah. But, very easy for USA to come up with excuse, like with Iraq.

I don't think it's as easy. Bush's approval rating is extremely low and the Republicans no longer have the majority in congress. If they want to have any chance of winning in '08 they can't start another war either unless it's, without a doubt, justified.

Janbaz

05-14-2007, 11:24 PM

I don't think it's as easy. Bush's approval rating is extremely low and the Republicans no longer have the majority in congress. If they want to have any chance of winning in '08 they can't start another war either unless it's, without a doubt, justified.

Acctualy they have a big chance of winning if:

Their talk with Iran results in substantial calm in Iraq and Afghanestan, and gradualy..( GRADUALY) they will reduce their forces from Iraq, and sign a Nuclear Agreement with Iran.

By election Time (Nov 2008) most of their troops are out of Iraq, Iran's help have put a damper in Iraq and Afghanestan, also Iran and US agreed on Nuclear Enrichmend deal, and Republicans are hero again.

It could work guys.. just could.

Prinz Eugen

05-15-2007, 05:12 AM

Thanks for the data, the shore batteries looked quite promissing.
I have a question regarding the Korvets:
I cant see any Air or missile defence systems on them
(well exept the guns, but..) arent any airdefence systems in service with the Iranian Navy? Is anything in development in the moment?

kaiser_tr

05-15-2007, 06:02 AM

real pictures would be nicer instead of illustrations

isveC

05-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Nice pics...

Sajjad

05-15-2007, 11:44 AM

real pictures would be nicer instead of illustrations

There are real pictures of them, but this is from author of a book.

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 03:07 PM

Acctualy they have a big chance of winning if:

Their talk with Iran results in substantial calm in Iraq and Afghanestan, and gradualy..( GRADUALY) they will reduce their forces from Iraq, and sign a Nuclear Agreement with Iran.

By election Time (Nov 2008) most of their troops are out of Iraq, Iran's help have put a damper in Iraq and Afghanestan, also Iran and US agreed on Nuclear Enrichmend deal, and Republicans are hero again.

It could work guys.. just could.

Time is quickly running out though. 18 months or so until elections isn't all that much time to fix a huge problem theyP messed up.

Thanks for the data, the shore batteries looked quite promissing.
I have a question regarding the Korvets:
I cant see any Air or missile defence systems on them
(well exept the guns, but..) arent any airdefence systems in service with the Iranian Navy? Is anything in development in the moment?

Small ships aren't going to have any anti air defenses. Really only cruisers and larger will have AA guns, maybe destroyers. Or missiles I suppose. On small ships there isn't any room for them.

Prinz Eugen

05-15-2007, 03:15 PM

Small ships aren't going to have any anti air defenses. Really only cruisers and larger will have AA guns, maybe destroyers. Or missiles I suppose. On small ships there isn't any room for them.

:baffled3: Maybe in the Navy of Kongo....

Never heard of RAM or Phalanx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

On small ships there isnt any room for them..
Is this a cruiser then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard_class_fast_attack_craft

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 03:30 PM

:baffled3: Maybe in the Navy of Kongo....

Never heard of RAM or Phalanx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

On small ships there isnt any room for them..
Is this a cruiser then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard_class_fast_attack_craft

Phalanx isn't an AA gun. It's an anti missile gatling gun which is fairly short range.

The RAM is an American technology and Iran wouldn't have it. If you look at the rockets of the RAM they're also pretty small, and may have difficulty hitting fighters which are a lot more maneuverable than a missile. 7.5km range also isn't that far when planes can launch missiles from 3-4 miles as well.

Prinz Eugen

05-15-2007, 03:38 PM

Phalanx isn't an AA gun. It's an anti missile gatling gun which is fairly short range.

The RAM is an American technology and Iran wouldn't have it. If you look at the rockets of the RAM they're also pretty small, and may have difficulty hitting fighters which are a lot more maneuverable than a missile. 7.5km range also isn't that far when planes can launch missiles from 3-4 miles as well.

We are talking about air defence, right?:confused4:
So RAM or Phalanx arent air defence systems?
Show me one corvette class ship without air defence....

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 04:16 PM

We are talking about air defence, right?:confused4:
So RAM or Phalanx arent air defence systems?
Show me one corvette class ship without air defence....

Phalanx is MISSILE defense. A gatling gun won't help you against a fighter or bomber.

Also, as I said before, this thread is about Iranian ships. Iran doesn't have any of that technology, that's all American tech.

Ricardo

05-15-2007, 04:19 PM

Phalanx is MISSILE defense. A gatling gun won't help you against a fighter or bomber.

Also, as I said before, this thread is about Iranian ships. Iran doesn't have any of that technology, that's all American tech.

I dont kow if the TORM1 has the capacity to protect those ships, the torm1 has 20 km of range.

Is that enough sir? :err2:

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 04:24 PM

I dont kow if the TORM1 has the capacity to protect those ships, the torm1 has 20 km of range.

Is that enough sir? :err2:

Er, the Tor-M1 is launched from a vehicle, not a ship.

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 04:26 PM

Ricardo

05-15-2007, 04:28 PM

Er, the Tor-M1 is launched from a vehicle, not a ship.

I know.

It can protect them from the beach?

It can destroy guided and small missile :)

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 04:35 PM

I know.

It can protect them from the beach?

It can destroy guided and small missile :)

You'd have to be pretty close to the beach :P 20km or so isn't that far off shore. Also, if it's out in the open on a beach, they will be easy targets for American stealth aircraft.

Ricardo

05-15-2007, 04:48 PM

You'd have to be pretty close to the beach :P 20km or so isn't that far off shore. Also, if it's out in the open on a beach, they will be easy targets for American stealth aircraft.

Oh come on :D

There isnt any stealth aircraft in the aircraft carriers, the only "stealth aicraft" is the f-22 and f-35 and those are not ready to enter in service.

A f-18 is not stealthy

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 05:30 PM

Oh come on :D

There isnt any stealth aircraft in the aircraft carriers, the only "stealth aicraft" is the f-22 and f-35 and those are not ready to enter in service.

A f-18 is not stealthy

The F-22 is in service now. It's been around a few years. It's an air force plane, yeah, but there are US bases not that far off.

Janbaz

05-15-2007, 07:05 PM

The F-22 is in service now. It's been around a few years. It's an air force plane, yeah, but there are US bases not that far off.

The F-22 is Airforce, Navy and Marine. The Marine version can take off and land Verticaly. It has been around since mid 2006 (Beside the Prototypes).

Kiaar

05-15-2007, 07:29 PM

The F-22 is Airforce, Navy and Marine. The Marine version can take off and land Verticaly. It has been around since mid 2006 (Beside the Prototypes).

That's actually the f-35 lightning II. The f-22 raptor can't take off vertically. They're both stealth planes but the f-35 is actually a little stealthier, can carrier more weapons, and is a lot faster. It can go up to mach 1.5 without afterburners and has more advanced software.

JEskandari

05-16-2007, 04:25 AM

JEskandari

05-16-2007, 04:28 AM

Kiaar

05-16-2007, 03:00 PM

i thin you meant f22

I think you meant f-35 :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL#History

JEskandari

05-17-2007, 01:38 AM

I think you meant f-35 :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL#History
i mean stealthier ,faster and carry more weapon ,not take off vertically.

Kiaar

05-17-2007, 03:04 PM

i mean stealthier ,faster and carry more weapon ,not take off vertically.

It's still the f-35. An f-22 can't cruise at mach 1.5. The radar image of the f-35 is also smaller, something like the size of a large insect if I heard correctly. For the weapons I'm not actually sure to be honest, but I imagine it can hold at least as many as the f-22 if not more.

Relikt

06-05-2007, 09:25 AM

It's still the f-35. An f-22 can't cruise at mach 1.5. The radar image of the f-35 is also smaller, something like the size of a large insect if I heard correctly. For the weapons I'm not actually sure to be honest, but I imagine it can hold at least as many as the f-22 if not more.
You are wrong.
F-22 is better in stealth, in speed, in agility, in radar, in missile load. F-22 cost 150 mln $ and F-35 cost 70 mln $ so how F-35 can be better and cheaper and plus it have VSTOL?

F-22 will replace F-15 while F-35 will replace F-16 (for airforce) A-10(for army) and some aging bombers(in navy).
F-15 is twice expensive then F-16. Same thing is with F-22 and F-35.
USN have one big problem after F14 retired. Absence of air superiority fighter.
Super hornet isnt capable for that same can be say for F-35.
There was even proposal of retired US admiral for buying Su-27 body and putting inside US technology(engines, electronics etc).

Nubian Warrior

06-05-2007, 08:25 PM

I don't think it's as easy. Bush's approval rating is extremely low and the Republicans no longer have the majority in congress. If they want to have any chance of winning in '08 they can't start another war either unless it's, without a doubt, justified.

Ron Paul is pretty cool and honest for a politician. (I'm an anarchist so I'm neither!) He was one of the six republicans who voted against the war in Iraq and he has a great non-interventionist foreign policy in comparison to the rest of the hawkish ilk. My fav are :biggrin1: Dennis the Menace and Mike "Fred Flinstone" Gravel.

@@@@@!

06-08-2007, 11:43 PM

nice pictures.

I think Iranian missiles don't have "Wolf Pack Attack " capability.

which makes iran reaction time much longer.

@@@@@!

06-08-2007, 11:45 PM

Also I heard there is a Mowj I & II Classes. As well as Nahang I & II classes.

@@@@@!

06-09-2007, 12:03 AM

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8603/ImageReports/8603180070/5_8603180070_L600.jpg

@@@@@!

06-09-2007, 01:11 AM

one thing I don't understand about iranian navy is that they only put 4 missiles on their ships whether Missile Boat or Cruiser or whatever.

As the size increases other Navies put 8, 10 , 12 , etc but iranian navy always has 4 anti ship missiles.

Also iran is the only Navy that makes subs that don't fire torpedos???

Aren't subs suppose to carry torpedos. and by that I mean 24 , 533 mm torpedos not just one or two.

it is like their torpedo boats that carry only 2 torpedos.

or their rocket launchers that fires only one !!!!!

JEskandari

06-09-2007, 02:56 AM

Zraver

06-09-2007, 11:41 PM

The TOR M1 is navalised as the SA-N-9 Guantlet, but Iran does not have any and cannot get any due to the arms embargo.

I beleive the author of those articles is Planeman and he can be reached at sinodefense.

F-22 is optimized for A2A and it generally regarded as the most manuverable aircraft evermade in America, it is also the stealthiest and has super cruise. The F-35 as an attack craft does not need the speed the F-22 requires.

Ricardo

06-10-2007, 12:25 AM

Zraver

06-10-2007, 01:03 AM

Iran does not have the navalised version of the Tor M1. Nato reporting name SA-N-9 Guantlet

Kermanshah1

06-10-2007, 07:47 AM

Sorry but Alvand class and Moudge class are not corvettes. They are frigates.

JanIran

06-10-2007, 08:23 AM

Hezbollah hasn't written about " Joshan " ?

Kermanshah1

06-10-2007, 08:26 AM

Joshan was an Iranian Gunboat that attacked an Arerican battle-cruiser in the Persian Gulf, it was emobilized by a missile attack from the cruiser and then 5 U.S. ships surrounded Joshan and finished it of.

JanIran

06-10-2007, 08:30 AM

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/14_8506290462_L600.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/23_8506290462_L600.jpg

Well here it is again...

Kermanshah1

06-10-2007, 08:31 AM

It was sunk.

JanIran

06-10-2007, 08:34 AM

It was sunk.

It sunk 1988, this is a pic taken 2006,

" Re-built in memory of the original Joshan, lost in the Persian Gulf during Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988

* Announced by the Iranian government on September 22, 2006 as one of the best PT boats of the world navies

JanIran

06-10-2007, 08:36 AM

" Joshan has a claimed speed of over 45 sea knots[3] and "enjoys the world's latest technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities required for launching powerful missiles." according to Iran's Navy commander Admiral Kouch "

Kermanshah1

06-10-2007, 08:39 AM

Operation Praying mantis was a total disaster, Iran shouldn't have fought back.

JanIran

06-10-2007, 08:41 AM

Operation Praying mantis was a total disaster, Iran shouldn't have fought back.

You have still not proved that the Joshan do not exist in the Iranian Navy....
It doesn't matter if Operation Praying mantis was a disaster or not.

Kermanshah1

06-10-2007, 08:44 AM

If they made a new one than it does exist. I only knew a gunboat named Joshan attacked a U.S. battle cruiser and was sunk.

JanIran

06-10-2007, 08:46 AM

If they made a new one than it does exist. I only knew a gunboat named Joshan attacked a U.S. battle cruiser and was sunk.

OK, but is does exist, and I don't know why hezballah hasn't written about it... :(

@@@@@!

06-10-2007, 01:30 PM

24 ,533 mm torpedo means something like acula class not a midget 20 meter submarines.
and i think a missile boat or pt boat haven't enough space for more than 4 missiles even a destroyer.

I don't think u need something as big as Acula. Check swedish subs, Italian,Dutch.

What Iran is doing is like building a machine gun with a 3 bullet magazine.

it just beat the purpose.

and their missiles lack the following

1- Data Link

2- Search and Destroy Capability (Drone)

3- Wolf Pack Attack Capability (this is for anti ship)

4- Stealth Paint

5- Mid Course Correction and retargetting

6- Recon on the way to target (air launched)

7- Minimum Launch Height (this for aerial launch)

@@@@@!

06-10-2007, 01:41 PM

Kermanshah1

06-10-2007, 04:55 PM

Persepolis, have you read about the capabilities of the Iranian Fajr-3 (MIRV).

@@@@@!

06-10-2007, 07:28 PM

no i have not. do u have any material?

Zraver

06-10-2007, 10:06 PM

USN told joshan to abandon the ship and take refuge in US , crew and their families.

Joshan commander said Nuts. US started to close and acquired a radar lock on Joshan.

Joshan broke the radar lock and destroyed a US chopper closing in on Joshan.

USN then used a very strong ECM and attained another radar lock on Joshan.

Then USN fired fired 2 Missiles on Joshan , one was evaded but the second

hit the joshan. Joshan didn't want to open a war with US while Iran was fighting Iraq directly and 57 other countries indirectly including US.

Therefore Joshan didn't fired on USN ships. A political decision in the midst of a military battle.

This is different today. Don't overestimate USN capability.

Today strategy is 2 bullets for every bullet. U saw what happened in Lebenon.

Uhmm NO!

1- the saying nuts comes from the battle of bastonge

2- The only US Helicopte rloss occured well after dark 15 miles off Abu Musa hours after the Joshan was sunk

3- The joshan openfire witha harpoon ASM aimed at the wainwright in repsonce to USN A-6E intruders sinking and damaging a number of boghammers in retaliation for the mine damage inflicted on the USS Samuel B Roberts.

4- The Joshan was then engaged by 3 USN warships (Surface Action Group Charlie) who fired a total of 7 missiels (6 SM-2 in the surface role and 1 harpoon) the missle scrippled the ship and the 3 USN navy ships clsoe din and finished it with gun fire.

USS Wainwright (CG-28) USS Simpson (FFG-56) USS Bagley (FF-1069)

JEskandari

06-11-2007, 02:44 AM

If they made a new one than it does exist. I only knew a gunboat named Joshan attacked a U.S. battle cruiser and was sunk.
as i read somewhere Iran made a new ship called it after joshan but about its class or capabilities i wont remember them .

JEskandari

06-11-2007, 03:10 AM

it's what i found of joshan
P225 FAC(M) is also an Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) missile patrol boat (PT boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_boat)). Announced by the Iranian government on September 22, 2006 as one of the best PT boats of the world navies.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshan#_note-0) Re-built in memory of the original Joshan, lost in the Persian Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) during Operation Praying Mantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) on April 18, 1988, the boat's launch coincided with Sacred Defense Week (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacred_Defense_Week&action=edit) (Sept. 22-28) at Noshahr’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noshahr) Imam Khomeini Marine Sciences University (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imam_Khomeini_Marine_Sciences_University&action=edit).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshan#_note-Number_2666) Joshan has a claimed speed of over 45 sea knots[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshan#_note-1) and "enjoys the world's latest technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities required for launching powerful missiles." according to Iran's Navy commander Admiral Kouchaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kouchaki&action=edit).

@@@@@!

06-12-2007, 10:43 AM

lots of things happened and all the Navy communication is on line somewhere. But the reality is Navy made a political decision in the midst of a
military conflict. this is not the case today. Joshan hit the USN chopper.

Nuts was a short interpretation of what he said in persian. I am very well aware of the WWII battles.

Kermanshah1

06-12-2007, 10:55 AM

no i have not. do u have any material?

The Fajr-3 can evade ati-missiles and has 3 Warheads, the Missile splits in 3 peaces and all 3 can indipendently find a target and hit it. This is by far Irans most suffisticated missile and it has am unknown range but it's range is estimated on 2500KM that is further than the Shahab-3. Not much information is available, all said was they did this succesfully in the wargames in november 2006 (forgot how they where called), they wouldn't tell any more of it's capabilities.

Kiaar

06-12-2007, 03:52 PM

The Fajr-3 can evade ati-missiles and has 3 Warheads, the Missile splits in 3 peaces and all 3 can indipendently find a target and hit it. This is by far Irans most suffisticated missile and it has am unknown range but it's range is estimated on 2500KM that is further than the Shahab-3. Not much information is available, all said was they did this succesfully in the wargames in november 2006 (forgot how they where called), they wouldn't tell any more of it's capabilities.

Wait, so it splits into three individual missiles? That doesn't seem likely.

It can split into three pieces I'd believe, but there's I don't see how each one could track it's own target after seperation unless the target coordinations were preprogrammed.

Kermanshah1

06-12-2007, 03:59 PM

Well I meant if splits in three individual peaces. Now I don't konw how they do it but this is what a Revolutionary Guard General said about the missile.

Kiaar

06-12-2007, 04:15 PM

Well I meant if splits in three individual peaces. Now I don't konw how they do it but this is what a Revolutionary Guard General said about the missile.

They probably just spread out to hit a larger area. Most likely at a programmed altitude above the target the warheads split apart to hit three places in the area of the target rather than one.

Kermanshah1

06-12-2007, 04:21 PM

They hit moving targets and sunk a ship (a crappy one). Also the missile has a layor of radar absorbant material around it. The general said they all three peaces where supposed to hit targets independently and follow targets that try to evade them, he stated they where succesfully tested

Good Guy 2

06-12-2007, 05:11 PM

iranian SSK-kilo class
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2000/November/Images/submarine.jpg

JEskandari

06-13-2007, 08:39 PM

They probably just spread out to hit a larger area. Most likely at a programmed altitude above the target the warheads split apart to hit three places in the area of the target rather than one.
for this task iran has upgraded shahab 2and shahab 3 to warhead with 1400+ bomb let.

Kermanshah1

06-14-2007, 09:58 AM

The Fajr-3 evades anti-missiles, is radar absorbant, Splits in three, goes futher than 2500 KM, no matter what it sure is a great missile.

Kiaar

06-14-2007, 07:53 PM

The Fajr-3 evades anti-missiles, is radar absorbant, Splits in three, goes futher than 2500 KM, no matter what it sure is a great missile.

How exactly does it evade anti missiles? And how effective is it's radar absorbing material?

And more importantly, how big is the yield? You can have all the bomblets in the world, but if each has the punch of a grenade, it won't destroy much.

@@@@@!

06-14-2007, 08:32 PM

Kermanshah1

06-15-2007, 10:25 AM

How exactly does it evade anti missiles? And how effective is it's radar absorbing material?

And more importantly, how big is the yield? You can have all the bomblets in the world, but if each has the punch of a grenade, it won't destroy much.

General Hossein Salami (IRGC A-F) said all 3 pieces have the power of 500 WW2 bombs so in total that would be 1500 WW2 bombs. Salami also said it could hit several targets simultaneously using three warheads and ''It can avoid anti-missile missiles''. He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and that each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the development demonstrates Iran's “very active and aggressive military program” that is worrisome to the world.

Kiaar

06-15-2007, 01:41 PM

500 WW2 bombs?

What kind of WW2 bombs?

There's more than one :P

Kermanshah1

06-15-2007, 01:46 PM

500 WW2 bombs?

What kind of WW2 bombs?

There's more than one :P

They didn't give much infortmation, bombs dropped from US bombers on Germany and Japan I guess.

amir_behbahani

06-16-2007, 11:54 PM

That's actually the f-35 lightning II. The f-22 raptor can't take off vertically. They're both stealth planes but the f-35 is actually a little stealthier, can carrier more weapons, and is a lot faster. It can go up to mach 1.5 without afterburners and has more advanced software.

the f-35 JSF is actually inferior in all those aspects to the raptor , it s less steathy (who knows what that means) and slower , it cant supercruise like raptor , i dont know about the payload ; it is a Joint Strike Fighter , meaning countries like turkey will get their hands on it , how could it be superior to raptor , raptor is high tech but still maintanable by the airmen from alabama , it supercruises and apparently it s "stealthy" , it is designed to launch long range aa and head back , despite all the thrustvector crap it s no agile like f-16 or f-18 , and it s so goddamn expensive they re still debating on the mass production.
apparently it cant take off a carrier cause of its fat *** but i think with jesus' blessing not only it can take off from a carrier it can actually take off vertically

Janbaz

06-22-2007, 12:51 PM

m-atf asked me to post these photos for him.
These photos are of NAHANG CLASS Iranian Submarine. Mini Subs.

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/19143/2002519365852976878_fs.jpg

http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/17979/2002510178499402396_fs.jpg

@@@@@!

06-25-2007, 08:58 PM

what is that, torpedos on the side?

torpedos must be in the front bay. so if you are attacked you can dodge with minimum distance.

what is gonna happen if you are hit on the side?

Vladimir80

06-25-2007, 11:25 PM

Very good diagrams hezballah. Iran can easily close straights of Hormuz with this fleet.

Kermanshah1

06-26-2007, 04:03 AM

Very good diagrams hezballah. Iran can easily close straights of Hormuz with this fleet.

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

amir_behbahani

06-26-2007, 04:04 AM

Vladimir80

06-26-2007, 04:38 AM

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

The straits are 110m deep in the shipping channels. It is impossible to block it with sunken ships. This isn't the mouth to a river, it opens to an ocean.

jawwal

06-26-2007, 05:47 AM

what is that, torpedos on the side?

torpedos must be in the front bay. so if you are attacked you can dodge with minimum distance.

what is gonna happen if you are hit on the side?

Any hit on any submarine makes it history most likely, yes they are torpedo tubes.

jawwal

06-26-2007, 05:50 AM

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

If iran can build enough of these small submarines, they would do a good job blocking the strait, shallow water would favor them against the bigger submarines.

Kermanshah1

06-26-2007, 10:04 AM

If iran can build enough of these small submarines, they would do a good job blocking the strait, shallow water would favor them against the bigger submarines.

Iran only has 1 Nahang class Submarine and they have 3 Ghadir class.

wmac

06-27-2007, 08:07 AM

I believe destroying Iranian vessels (submarine or ship) is an easy task for US specially bigger and slower ones.

Such things are to expensive. Perhaps we should invest on cheaper but more effective defense means.

Kermanshah1

06-27-2007, 08:08 AM

wmac

06-27-2007, 09:53 AM

Iran can also use Kowsar surface to sea guided missiles missiles.

Yes, I think Surface to Sea missiles and speed boats are more effective and cheap.

@@@@@!

06-29-2007, 10:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLmAIabHYZ8&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8T2-2T9l8s&mode=related&search=

@@@@@!

06-30-2007, 09:15 PM

I think I found a new speed boat, IRGC used these ones to capture brits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo_OJSf_T7A

check 1.39 the boat in the background with twin engines

@@@@@!

07-03-2007, 09:21 PM

anyone knows what are these mines they throw by rockets ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUsAKYeo6A&mode=related&search=

@@@@@!

07-04-2007, 11:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjBDgQYy8s

Janbaz

07-05-2007, 02:25 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjBDgQYy8s

Please avoid posting old and already posted links.

uppal340

07-05-2007, 02:39 AM

people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

Behrooz Boonabi

07-05-2007, 02:51 AM

people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

Missile force alone, too easy. They should realy go out of range to be effective otherwize, they are sitting ducks (more like chicks).

Kermanshah1

07-05-2007, 04:00 AM

people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

I think they can.

Janbaz

07-05-2007, 02:31 PM

Also, it can only attack targets at about 6,000 meters off the ground. Very low for a bomber or fighter to be flying.

It's also meant to be used against cruise missiles and the like, not smaller guided bombs or missiles.

You got your Killometers and Meters wrong. Tor-M1 range is 20K. Each Killometer is 1000 Meter, so Tor-M1 range is 20,000 meters.

Janbaz

07-05-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by uppal340 http://www.irandefence.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?p=199164#post199164)
people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

I think they can.

Weapon to weapons bullet for bullet, and ship for ship, Iran has NO CHANCE againt US NAVY. Iran knows it, US Navy knows it and every one else knows it.

JanIran

07-05-2007, 03:07 PM

Weapon to weapons bullet for bullet, and ship for ship, Iran has NO CHANCE againt US NAVY. Iran knows it, US Navy knows it and every one else knows it.

Do you think they will use a nuclear bomb...?

Janbaz

07-05-2007, 04:16 PM

Do you think they will use a nuclear bomb...?

Well, US has said this since 2002 that if they see they are on the brink of losing any war, they will use Tactical Nuclear weapons.

Kermanshah1

07-05-2007, 05:06 PM

Weapon to weapons bullet for bullet, and ship for ship, Iran has NO CHANCE againt US NAVY. Iran knows it, US Navy knows it and every one else knows it.

Only the US navy wouldn't be fighting, a part of the US nacy will be fighting, and then Iran sranda a chance.

Behrooz Boonabi

07-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Only the US navy wouldn't be fighting, a part of the US nacy will be fighting, and then Iran sranda a chance.

Missile force would be the best offencive for both parties.

Kermanshah1

07-05-2007, 05:13 PM

Missile force would be the best offencive for both parties.

What kind of ships and how many of each kind does the US all have in the Persian gulf?

KingoftheHill

07-06-2007, 12:20 AM

What kind of ships and how many of each kind does the US all have in the Persian gulf?

Stop being a post whore and search on google and this site.

Kermanshah1

07-06-2007, 03:58 AM

Stop being a post whore and search on google and this site.

I couldn't find it. So what for ships do they have?

JanIran

07-07-2007, 05:35 AM

I couldn't find it. So what for ships do they have?

I can't either find it. But I found that the US has more than 10.000 military personnel in the persian gulf.

Kermanshah1

07-07-2007, 05:44 AM

I can't either find it. But I found that the US has more than 10.000 military personnel in the persian gulf.

So what Iran has 18,000 Navy (includes 2,600 Marines and 2,000 aviation men) and 20,000 IRGC Navy wich totals 38,000

JanIran

07-07-2007, 05:53 AM

So what Iran has 18,000 Navy (includes 2,600 Marines and 2,000 aviation men) and 20,000 IRGC Navy wich totals 38,000

The important thing is which weapons you use against each other...
Who has the more, modern, powerful etc...
In this case it's navy, and you know that the US navy is more powerful than the Iranian navy. So it doens't really matter how many men Iran has against the US.
I would rather want Iran to have a more powerful navy (more powerful destroyers, frigates) than so many military personnel...

Kermanshah1

07-07-2007, 05:58 AM

The important thing is which weapons you use against each other...
Who has the more, modern, powerful etc...
In this case it's navy, and you know that the US navy is more powerful than the Iranian navy. So it doens't really matter how many men Iran has against the US.
I would rather want Iran to have a more powerful navy (more powerful destroyers, frigates) than so many military personnel...

Irans destroyers are realy just to laugh about, 3 destroyers from the 40s, 2 are retired and 1 is non-operational.

JanIran

07-07-2007, 06:03 AM

Irans destroyers are realy just to laugh about, 3 destroyers from the 40s, 2 are retired and 1 is non-operational.

Yes, so if it comes a war against the US and Iran. Iran most bomb... :biggrin1:

Kermanshah1

07-07-2007, 06:04 AM

Yes, so if it comes a war against the US and Iran. Iran most bomb... :biggrin1:

They can use their other ships (although thier large vessels are rubbish too).

JanIran

07-07-2007, 06:05 AM

They can use their other ships (although thier large vessels are rubbish too).

With aircrafts... :smile1:

Kermanshah1

07-07-2007, 06:06 AM

With aircrafts... :smile1:

Recon Iran could beat the US in air? When I showed oli the list of Iranian fighters he reconed they could and that we where underrating the IRIAF and the IRGCAF.

JanIran

07-07-2007, 06:16 AM

Recon Iran could beat the US in air? When I showed oli the list of Iranian fighters he reconed they could and that we where underrating the IRIAF and the IRGCAF.

I didn't meant beat, i meant bomb... with missiles...

@@@@@!

07-10-2007, 08:30 PM

hey everyone

recently i had found a lot of clips of old iranian manouvers and videos on the utube...

these look like the old ones , but they r not , they contain more info even by few seconds ...

it seems to me that iran iran has edited these old clips with more critical info

if u r enthusiastic be patient and watch them carefully but these are not the old clips. trust me.

Janbaz

07-11-2007, 12:45 AM

This is what Tom Cooper said recently about possible Iranian and US confelect. If you are not familiar with Tom Cooper, I suggest you to look him up. He has written several books (with Farzad Bishop) about Iran-Iraq war and F-14, F-4 and IRIAF role in that war. I think he is based in Austria.

As mighty as the US air power is, one should not overestimate it. Then, when one draws some parallels with specific recent conflicts, there is a lot to find showing that this all-mighty air power is anything but all-mighty.

The US attacks on Serbia, in 1999, Afghanistan, in 2001, and Iraq, in 2003, have provided a plethora of very good examples for this.

As first, all these wars were proceeded by a lenghty period of tensions (the shortest was that before Afghanistan, and even this has taken a month or so), leaving the defending side plenty of time to move all of its sensitive assets out of the potentially targeted zones. It is, just for example, meanwhile well-known (or, should I say: it should be well-known), that the Serbs have moved all of their units out of their barracks, garages etc. three days before the NATO-strike, in 1999, so that these were never hit there. All the Iraqi ministries and government buildings hit in the "shock & awe" offensive, back in March 2003, were completely empty. Even their archives were empty (either evacuated and hidden, or destroyed well in advance of the coming conflict). Except for empty houses, all the cruise missiles and PGMs spent during this offensive have actually had absolutely no impact at all on Iraqi fighting capability.

One of the most obscure facts about the US air raids against Afghanistan, in October/November 2001, was that the USN (sometimes USAF as well) was spending millions of Bucks worth laser-guided-bombs to bomb the crap out of aircraft wreckage strewn around numerous Afghan airfields, especially so in the case of Baghram. This was extremely poor work of US intel: most of the Afghan aircraft wrecks hit on such occassions, namely, were MiG-17s, An-24/26s, few An-12s and even some Il-28s that were known (in public) to be inoperational already since the late 1980s. Most of these wrecks could be even seen on photographs taken by various aviation journalists and published in such magazines like World Air Power Journal or Aircraft Illustrated, already years before that!

Serbia and Montenegro was a very small country back in 1999 (Serbia is even smaller now), with only five or six main airfields at the time, as compared with over 60 in Iran, which is something like 20 times bigger (Iran is, BTW, also two and a half or three times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan). Yet, except in Podgorica, where 29 training aircraft hidden in underground bunkers have been destroyed, the main Serbian interceptor force of MiG-29s has been hardly hit at all on the ground. If I recall correctly, despite quite massive air raids and cruise missile attacks of Batajnica, Nis etc., only one MiG-29 was destroyed on the ground in the course of some 70 days. The USAF went to plink dozens of decoys, but Serbian MiG-21s and J-22 Oraos remained operational and flew some 200 sorties against various targets in Kosovo during that conflict without disturbance on the part of NATO air power.

Again: Iran is much bigger than Serbia, and it has much higher mountains as well, with much more airfields. The country is nothing like the flat deserts that cover most of Iraq, or as empty as Afghanistan. There is much more space to hide things of any value, and it is obvious that Iranians are already since years hard at work to do exactly that. The US intel community has immense problems with intelligence gathering due to various mistakes done in the recent years, and the situation is not likely to improve soon. They'd have literal mountains of problems just to find the IRIAF on the ground.

Besides, Iran is not really weakened by years of sanctions, nor ruined by wars, but rather managed to develop its own, strong defence sector - something that was neither the case with Serbia or Iraq, and even less so with Afghanistan. Which means: even if they cannot replace hardware "made in USA", and currently still in service, they can (as they already have) developed their own, unusual and new, weapons and tactics to hit back.

The IRIAF would also not be held back like IrAF was in 2003, or restricted by politicians to act a specific way, like Serbian AF in 1999. Still, due to their experiences with Iraqis and Serbs, the Americans are always very glad to underestimate the Iranians - which would be an important weakness on their part. This means that the USA couldn't expect to establish anything like air superiority they did establish over Serbia in 1999, or Iraq in 2003. And, that means that the IRIAF would very likely remain capable (at least for few weeks) to continue operating under specific circumstances, even in face of a much stronger onslaught. Quite on the contrary, the longer the war would last, the more time would be left to the IRIAF to adapt to eventual new US weapons, tactics and thinking.

It's rather so that the IRIAF would most likely be forced to operate as a kind of an "aerial guerrilla". The Iranians know they could not face the US air power in a frontal engagement; that they'd have to accept the first blow and give up challenging the US control of Iranian skies right from the start. Rather than this, they'd have to go for playing a thorn in the side; hitting back where and when unexpected, delivering pointed blows to show that they are still around, and making US operations costly. The IRIAF would have to move its fighter fleet and disperse it on various airfields in the centre of the country, where these would either be out of reach by US air power, or where the Americans could reach them only irregularly. When airborne, the Iranians would have to operate at very low levels most of the times, making extensive use of terrain masking, and could not reach back on even what little they now have of a radar net for early warning. That means that the overall situational awareness of their pilots would be relatively low, and they could conduct only hit-and-run operations. But, they'd be able to deploy a large number of UAVs for various purposes - including target detection and early warning, and these would be of immense help.

In the case of being detected prematurely, they'd have low escape chances, but otherwise they could still hit, cause damage, evade and disappear more often than not.

Add to this the fact that the IRIAF has now had more than enough opportunities to study the US operations over Iraq: ever since 1991 the Iranians are sitting "front row" and watching what's going on beyond their borders. They know much about the US tactics, about its electronic orbat and capabilities. They also know what they need to hide or defend, while the Americans are not even 100% sure what do they really need to hit in order to achieve their objectives.

So, the situation is far from being a simple as, "the US air power would roll over Iranian airfields and that would be that". Anything but an outright invasion of Iran would be insufficient to even significantly degrade IRIAF's capability for (at least) point defence. And, the US military is simply not in condition for such an act: at best they could mount a big aerial offensive.

Kiaar

07-11-2007, 10:56 AM

Thing is though that article seemed to point to lack of good intelligence, not lack of air power. Lack of good, reliable intelligence is something I've not seen denied.

Janbaz

07-14-2007, 03:10 AM

This picture is an Iranian China Cat belongs to IRGC.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6044/chinacatsp3.jpg

Zraver

07-14-2007, 04:59 AM

as Afghanistan. There is much more space to hide things of any value, and it is obvious that Iranians are already since years hard at work to do exactly that. The US intel community has immense problems with intelligence gathering due to various mistakes done in the recent years, and the situation is not likely to improve soon. They'd have literal mountains of problems just to find the IRIAF on the ground.

Besides, Iran is not really weakened by years of sanctions, nor ruined by wars, but rather managed to develop its own, strong defence sector - something that was neither the case with Serbia or Iraq, and even less so with Afghanistan. Which means: even if they cannot replace hardware "made in USA", and currently still in service, they can (as they already have) developed their own, unusual and new, weapons and tactics to hit back.

The IRIAF would also not be held back like IrAF was in 2003, or restricted by politicians to act a specific way, like Serbian AF in 1999. Still, due to their experiences with Iraqis and Serbs, the Americans are always very glad to underestimate the Iranians - which would be an important weakness on their part. This means that the USA couldn't expect to establish anything like air superiority they did establish over Serbia in 1999, or Iraq in 2003. And, that means that the IRIAF would very likely remain capable (at least for few weeks) to continue operating under specific circumstances, even in face of a much stronger onslaught. Quite on the contrary, the longer the war would last, the more time would be left to the IRIAF to adapt to eventual new US weapons, tactics and thinking.

It's rather so that the IRIAF would most likely be forced to operate as a kind of an "aerial guerrilla". The Iranians know they could not face the US air power in a frontal engagement; that they'd have to accept the first blow and give up challenging the US control of Iranian skies right from the start. Rather than this, they'd have to go for playing a thorn in the side; hitting back where and when unexpected, delivering pointed blows to show that they are still around, and making US operations costly. The IRIAF would have to move its fighter fleet and disperse it on various airfields in the centre of the country, where these would either be out of reach by US air power, or where the Americans could reach them only irregularly. When airborne, the Iranians would have to operate at very low levels most of the times, making extensive use of terrain masking, and could not reach back on even what little they now have of a radar net for early warning. That means that the overall situational awareness of their pilots would be relatively low, and they could conduct only hit-and-run operations. But, they'd be able to deploy a large number of UAVs for various purposes - including target detection and early warning, and these would be of immense help.

In the case of being detected prematurely, they'd have low escape chances, but otherwise they could still hit, cause damage, evade and disappear more often than not.

Add to this the fact that the IRIAF has now had more than enough opportunities to study the US operations over Iraq: ever since 1991 the Iranians are sitting "front row" and watching what's going on beyond their borders. They know much about the US tactics, about its electronic orbat and capabilities. They also know what they need to hide or defend, while the Americans are not even 100% sure what do they really need to hit in order to achieve their objectives.

So, the situation is far from being a simple as, "the US air power would roll over Iranian airfields and that would be that". Anything but an outright invasion of Iran would be insufficient to even significantly degrade IRIAF's capability for (at least) point defence. And, the US military is simply not in condition for such an act: at best they could mount a big aerial offensive

1- In the air part of anywar Iran will be at a huge disadvantage, so large it might as well be called suicidal. US AWACs and other platforms can look deep inside Ira with thier look down capability and spot the light fighters amssing for a sortie even at low level. They can then vector high flying American fighters to intercept while the iranians denied radar support thanks to stealth attacks are blind flying augely in the direction of the enemy probalby the E-2 or E-3 radar emissions.

And flying towards a race they cant win at low level. If the fighters stay low as defense against the AIM-120 C or D then tehy have to go slow ans will not be fast enough to catch the high flying radar craft. if they gain height to increase speed they move into the ideal envelope for the AMRAAM

2- Most of Iran's fighters are very short ranged, meaning interior dispersal to minimize omb effects leave coverage gaps that ar eunavoidable. For every site that needed 2 fighters over head 24/7 Iran woul have to deploy 21 craft 18/2 on 3 hour patrols (1 pair in the air, 1 pair fueled and ready to launch" ready 5" 1 pair on 10 minute alert, 2 pair in for service affer last patrol, 3 pair off duty, 1 pair being breifed, 1 pair on leave at a time, and 1 spare airframe Iran does not have enough fighters to keep that pace. UK force s and alter Luftwaffe forces in WW2 subjected to that schedule took a horrible toll.

The US with A2A refueling, more effecient engines, and now super cruise can wear the IrAF out and strike when they notice gaps.

3- If Iran insteads triesto use its air force the way it is desinged (a a surge force to ge tthe SU-24's through) they can get off 1-2 good wieghty strikes beofre attrition renders the figther force efectively destroyed in combat. I don't know how good the American radars really are but if the Sentry's and Hawkeyes can spot the fencers through the foighter swarm and dorect missiels onto them then the IrAF's ofensive punch is destroyed no matter what the fighter escort does.

Behrooz Boonabi

07-14-2007, 05:13 AM

1- In the air part of anywar Iran will be at a huge disadvantage, so large it might as well be called suicidal. US AWACs and other platforms can look deep inside Ira with thier look down capability and spot the light fighters amssing for a sortie even at low level. They can then vector high flying American fighters to intercept while the iranians denied radar support thanks to stealth attacks are blind flying augely in the direction of the enemy probalby the E-2 or E-3 radar emissions.

And flying towards a race they cant win at low level. If the fighters stay low as defense against the AIM-120 C or D then tehy have to go slow ans will not be fast enough to catch the high flying radar craft. if they gain height to increase speed they move into the ideal envelope for the AMRAAM

2- Most of Iran's fighters are very short ranged, meaning interior dispersal to minimize omb effects leave coverage gaps that ar eunavoidable. For every site that needed 2 fighters over head 24/7 Iran woul have to deploy 21 craft 18/2 on 3 hour patrols (1 pair in the air, 1 pair fueled and ready to launch" ready 5" 1 pair on 10 minute alert, 2 pair in for service affer last patrol, 3 pair off duty, 1 pair being breifed, 1 pair on leave at a time, and 1 spare airframe Iran does not have enough fighters to keep that pace. UK force s and alter Luftwaffe forces in WW2 subjected to that schedule took a horrible toll.

The US with A2A refueling, more effecient engines, and now super cruise can wear the IrAF out and strike when they notice gaps.

3- If Iran insteads triesto use its air force the way it is desinged (a a surge force to ge tthe SU-24's through) they can get off 1-2 good wieghty strikes beofre attrition renders the figther force efectively destroyed in combat. I don't know how good the American radars really are but if the Sentry's and Hawkeyes can spot the fencers through the foighter swarm and dorect missiels onto them then the IrAF's ofensive punch is destroyed no matter what the fighter escort does.

It wont be like that at all. It will be a ballistic missile fight. Iran will not use the airforce untile the carriers are sunk, the escorts will be picked of using missiles, torpedos, mines. Anyway, it will be a missile battle and the aircraft that managed to get off their decks wont even know where to find the mobile targets.

Attacking from the gulf is a bad idea.

Kermanshah1

07-14-2007, 05:15 AM

Behrooz Boonabi

07-14-2007, 05:16 AM

Exactly, if I was the leader of Irans air-force I wouldn't send my planes up (untill the carriers are sunk)

Or atleast a few holes on the deck.

Kermanshah1

07-14-2007, 05:21 AM

Or atleast a few holes on the deck.

Yes if they're unoperatable it's good enough. I think once one is heavily damaged they should capture it. Iran shoudl only unse their airforce against US soldiers on ground without the Us having planes involved or against Us ships without the US having planes involved.

Kiaar

07-14-2007, 10:05 AM

Yes if they're unoperatable it's good enough. I think once one is heavily damaged they should capture it. Iran shoudl only unse their airforce against US soldiers on ground without the Us having planes involved or against Us ships without the US having planes involved.

Capture it? Not likely. Even Iran did disable the deck, there is still an entire fleet around the carrier. And even if this unlikely situation occurred where the entire fleet was disabled by massive salvos of missiles, the ships would probably be scuttled long before any Iranian soldiers could get control.

Zraver

07-14-2007, 01:22 PM

It wont be like that at all. It will be a ballistic missile fight. Iran will not use the airforce untile the carriers are sunk, the escorts will be picked of using missiles, torpedos, mines. Anyway, it will be a missile battle and the aircraft that managed to get off their decks wont even know where to find the mobile targets.

Attacking from the gulf is a bad idea.

1- the US wont have cariers in the Gulf itself when the war starts

2- using ballistic missiles is foolish they don't have the ability to hit moving targets. With CEP's around 50M and a 5 minute flight time the carrier will have moved 4.65km from where it was.

3- The US Aegis system can shoot down ballistic tracks and even engage both cruise misisle and ballistic tracks at the same time.

How does Iran counter 5 carriers sitting off its coast in the Indian Ocean from 150-200km 350 4+ gen aircraft , 10+ aegis vessels, 10,000 USMC etc, more than enough power to take Abu Musa and the other Islands speciually since the USMC has OTH capability and only has to take the missiel firing shores.

Vladimir80

07-14-2007, 02:33 PM

3- The US Aegis system can shoot down ballistic tracks and even engage both cruise misisle and ballistic tracks at the same time.

AEGIS equipped vessels with ballistic software upgrades are few and those are stationed in the Pacific to protect Taiwan and Japan. None of the AEGIS in the Persian Gulf have that capabilty yet and even if they did the compliment of SM-3s would only be a handful as the rest of the tubes carry TLAMs and SM-2s.

How does Iran counter 5 carriers sitting off its coast in the Indian Ocean from 150-200km 350 4+ gen aircraft , 10+ aegis vessels, 10,000 USMC etc, more than enough power to take Abu Musa and the other Islands speciually since the USMC has OTH capability and only has to take the missiel firing shores.

With the need to maintain vigil in the Pacific and the decom of another carrier without replacement only 4 carriers would be available for surge. They would never make it past the Straights so airpower would have to be deleivered from well beyond the horizon lowering sortie generation rates. Air strikes would have to pound the area for days to make sure as much could be taken out before amphibious operations began. From my understanding there are hidden bunkers that can keep thousands safe. 10,000 marines would have a hard time taking that many defended troops of IRGC. USMC would have to do far more than taking the islands, taking the shore and holding them would be impossible with depleted USMC numbers with millions of besij fighters.

Zraver

07-14-2007, 03:40 PM

AEGIS equipped vessels with ballistic software upgrades are few and those are stationed in the Pacific to protect Taiwan and Japan. None of the AEGIS in the Persian Gulf have that capabilty yet and even if they did the compliment of SM-3s would only be a handful as the rest of the tubes carry TLAMs and SM-2s.

With the need to maintain vigil in the Pacific and the decom of another carrier without replacement only 4 carriers would be available for surge. They would never make it past the Straights so airpower would have to be deleivered from well beyond the horizon lowering sortie generation rates. Air strikes would have to pound the area for days to make sure as much could be taken out before amphibious operations began. From my understanding there are hidden bunkers that can keep thousands safe. 10,000 marines would have a hard time taking that many defended troops of IRGC. USMC would have to do far more than taking the islands, taking the shore and holding them would be impossible with depleted USMC numbers with millions of besij fighters.

Millions of fighters hahahaha, the entire garrison of the Islands is only 8,000.
Te USMC only has to take the missiel firign shore of the islands while SEALs take the off shore platforms. Iran only has about 100 large long range AshM and many of those are older "silkworm" types. The overwhelming bulk of Iran's missiles cannot reach the strait except by boat, submarine, or Island firing.

Also it would not take days to reduce the defences. The USMC is not the IDF and the US is not Israel. We are far better motivated, beter equipped, led, and trained for the mission tasking. Iraqi insurgents (Shia and Sunni) after 4 years have still not been able to stop a single US assault no matter how hard they dug in or how willing to die they were.

The US is still building carriers the next slated to begin construction if the G.R. Ford. The US can surge 5 and still keep the pacific covered well enough. China does not have enough amphib or follow on capacity to attack taiwan and won't risk an adventure while oil supplies (and thus its economy and trade with the US) are at risk. In Short China will want a quick US victory and will feed Iran to the dogs politcally in the UN.

Sortie rate does not need to be all that high (per carrier) as far as supporting the USMC goes. Naval air will only have 2 primary missions. USMC support and strikes on the coastal radar net and boat sheds. USAF craft not allowe dot be used offensively vs Iran (at least until Iran attaks the GCC) can be sued for defensive escort missions vs Iran's small boat surge

Kermanshah1

07-14-2007, 04:12 PM

US is not like Israel. We are far better motivated

Wait. you are far better motivated:roflmao3:

What is your motivation. Your soldiers are going to a far land thousands of miles away where they have totaly nothing to do with to invade it because their president wants more power. Israeli soldiers are fighting for the survival of their nation. Their nation is under threat of being destroyed and the US is not under that threat.

I don't like Israel but your comment was just stupid.

Zraver

07-14-2007, 04:19 PM

Wait. you are far better motivated:roflmao3:

What is your motivation. Your soldiers are going to a far land thousands of miles away where they have totaly nothing to do with to invade it because their president wants more power. Israeli soldiers are fighting for the survival of their nation. Their nation is under threat of being destroyed and the US is not under that threat.

I don't like Israel but your comment was just stupid.

it's called espirit de corps, the USMC has it the IDF doesn't. The US soilder doesn't fight for the president he fights for America and his buddies. We didn;t have a stake in Europe in WW2 but our air crews flew where eagles dared to tread, and our GI's hit the beaches running and blasted thier way through stubborn suicidal defenders in the Hedgegrows, Aachen, Metz, and Colonge.

Quite simply the IDF thought it was elite comitted massive beginner blunders and got its head handed to them. The US knows it is elite and on the tatical level has not been beaten since Task Force Smith in 1950. The US invests huge amounts in leadership development and small unit training that combine with technology to produce a force you obviously don't understand. Find me a single place in Iraq where a US unit larger than a platoon has been forced to retreat by the "martyr's".

Behrooz Boonabi

07-14-2007, 04:23 PM

Find me a single place in Iraq where a US unit larger than a platoon has been forced to retreat by the "martyr's".

It is this outlook that ensures a proper whipping (litteraly). Iran is SOooo much different than Iraq.

Kermanshah1

07-14-2007, 04:25 PM

it's called espirit de corps, the USMC has it the IDF doesn't. The US soilder doesn't fight for the president he fights for America and his buddies. We didn;t have a stake in Europe in WW2 but our air crews flew where eagles dared to tread, and our GI's hit the beaches running and blasted thier way through stubborn suicidal defenders in the Hedgegrows, Aachen, Metz, and Colonge.

Quite simply the IDF thought it was elite comitted massive beginner blunders and got its head handed to them. The US knows it is elite and on the tatical level has not been beaten since Task Force Smith in 1950. The US invests huge amounts in leadership development and small unit training that combine with technology to produce a force you obviously don't understand. Find me a single place in Iraq where a US unit larger than a platoon has been forced to retreat by the "martyr's".

Sure they are stronger but not more motivated.

In WW2 Japan attacked the US and shortly after Germany declared war on the US. Why attack Iran? Most of them didn't even know Iran exted untill the propaganda started. Iran hasn't attacked or done anything wrong, are they fooled by the old weapons of massdestruction again? I don't think so...

Vladimir80

07-14-2007, 04:26 PM

Millions of fighters hahahaha, the entire garrison of the Islands is only 8,000.
Te USMC only has to take the missiel firign shore of the islands while SEALs take the off shore platforms. Iran only has about 100 large long range AshM and many of those are older "silkworm" types. The overwhelming bulk of Iran's missiles cannot reach the strait except by boat, submarine, or Island firing.

The garrison of the islands can EASILY be reinforced and most certainly would in the event of conflict. Taking the shore and going inland enough to suppress mobile launchers is more difficult than you imagine. There are hardly enough combat troops in the marines to complete the job and we know half of them are tied up. The flow of fighters both conventional and guerilla would more than they could possibly deal with. Without a reinforced landing of Army elements such an invasion would be futile. You can't just invade one section of land and not complete the conquest because all your enemy will come down on you in your most vulnerable position. Just holding the beach is stupid...

Also it would not take days to reduce the defences. The USMC is not the IDF and the US is not Israel. We are far better motivated, beter equipped, led, and trained for the mission tasking. Iraqi insurgents (Shia and Sunni) after 4 years have still not been able to stop a single US assault no matter how hard they dug in or how willing to die they were.

The usefull combat forces of the USMC are small and are nothing special. Even the IDF is there equal, Israels motivation is far greater than Marines who would be in some desert wasteland they don't give a crap about compared to Jews fighting for their nations survival. :roflmao3:

Iraqi insurgents are not IRGC... :huh2:

The US is still building carriers the next slated to begin construction if the G.R. Ford. The US can surge 5 and still keep the pacific covered well enough. China does not have enough amphib or follow on capacity to attack taiwan and won't risk an adventure while oil supplies (and thus its economy and trade with the US) are at risk. In Short China will want a quick US victory and will feed Iran to the dogs politcally in the UN.

The US has scaled back from 13 to 12 carriers and with rotations and Pacific alert could not bring but 4 to bear at any one time. The John F. Kennedy has not and will not be replaced dropping carrier status from 13 to 12.

Sortie rate does not need to be all that high (per carrier) as far as supporting the USMC goes. Naval air will only have 2 primary missions. USMC support and strikes on the coastal radar net and boat sheds. USAF craft not allowe dot be used offensively vs Iran (at least until Iran attaks the GCC) can be sued for defensive escort missions vs Iran's small boat surge

Your concept of what sorties needed to be flown are lacking. Not only will SEAD have to be conducted but also BARCAP, FORCAP, HAVCAP, RESCAP. With the marines flying Harriers armed with nothing but AIM-7s they will need constant protection. The AWACs needs protection along with any lost personell that will be shot down. The fleet will need a large contingent to protect it from assualt. The reduced compliment of combat aircraft and the extended range of beyond the horizen operations will make it hard to meet the requirements with only 200 Hornets. In fact I would say given these facts USAF would have to contribute HEAVILY to the operation.

:sorry3:

chaos

07-14-2007, 10:35 PM

Zarver, as an israeli i can tell you that IDF is very motivated. specially becasue of whats going on there at the moment.

Quite simply the IDF thought it was elite comitted massive beginner blunders and got its head handed to them.

??????

Kermanshah1

07-15-2007, 04:31 AM

Zarver, as an israeli i can tell you that IDF is very motivated. specially becasue of whats going on there at the moment.

??????

Yeah I know. American soldiers have to fight far away in some countrie they have nothing to do with and Israelis are fighting for thier nations survival.

Janbaz

07-15-2007, 11:49 AM

1- the US wont have cariers in the Gulf itself when the war starts

2- using ballistic missiles is foolish they don't have the ability to hit moving targets. With CEP's around 50M and a 5 minute flight time the carrier will have moved 4.65km from where it was.

3- The US Aegis system can shoot down ballistic tracks and even engage both cruise misisle and ballistic tracks at the same time.

How does Iran counter 5 carriers sitting off its coast in the Indian Ocean from 150-200km 350 4+ gen aircraft , 10+ aegis vessels, 10,000 USMC etc, more than enough power to take Abu Musa and the other Islands speciually since the USMC has OTH capability and only has to take the missiel firing shores.

You are talking in a way that Iran will sit still till US finished it's raids. The most likly senario is, that US will attack Iran from far away using it's stealth fighters/Bombers. US will place is carrier beyond the range of Iranian Shore to sea Missiles and Cruise missles. If Iran trys to attack with it's airforce, they will be shut down. The only problem US will encounter would be against Shahab Missiles and against it's troops in Iraq and Afghanestan and perhaps other places in the world that Iran have stated. Nothing else. US will keep it's naval power well out of reach of Iranian Missiles.

Kermanshah1

07-15-2007, 01:38 PM

You are talking in a way that Iran will sit still till US finished it's raids. The most likly senario is, that US will attack Iran from far away using it's stealth fighters/Bombers. US will place is carrier beyond the range of Iranian Shore to sea Missiles and Cruise missles. If Iran trys to attack with it's airforce, they will be shut down. The only problem US will encounter would be against Shahab Missiles and against it's troops in Iraq and Afghanestan and perhaps other places in the world that Iran have stated. Nothing else. US will keep it's naval power well out of reach of Iranian Missiles.

Iran launches a ground invasion in Iraq if the Us attacks and then what are they going to do? They have no air support so they have to send their carriers into the gulf.

Kiaar

07-15-2007, 01:50 PM

Iran launches a ground invasion in Iraq if the Us attacks and then what are they going to do? They have no air support so they have to send their carriers into the gulf.

There are US airbases in the area, and US aircraft can fly far enough to reach those areas from ranges long outside the Gulf...

Kermanshah1

07-15-2007, 01:51 PM

There are US airbases in the area, and US aircraft can fly far enough to reach those areas from ranges long outside the Gulf...

They don't have enough albums.

Kiaar

07-15-2007, 01:53 PM

They don't have enough albums.

Albums...?

Kermanshah1

07-15-2007, 01:54 PM

Albums...?

Oh sh*t I mean aircraft, I was just talking with my brother about albums so I got a bit confused.:worried2:

Kiaar

07-15-2007, 01:57 PM

Oh sh*t I mean aircraft, I was just talking with my brother about albums so I got a bit confused.:worried2:

Lol ok, it happens. I'm not so sure about that. Three of four carrier groups sitting just outside missile range would hold over hundreds of fighters/bombers, and that isn't including airbases in nearby countries.

Kermanshah1

07-15-2007, 01:58 PM

Lol ok, it happens. I'm not so sure about that. Three of four carrier groups sitting just outside missile range would hold over hundreds of fighters/bombers, and that isn't including airbases in nearby countries.

But can they support US troops in Iraq agianst an Iranian invasion.

Janbaz

07-15-2007, 02:21 PM

Iran launches a ground invasion in Iraq if the Us attacks and then what are they going to do? They have no air support so they have to send their carriers into the gulf.

That kind of statements is not logical. Iran will not and it is not in it's war plan to attack Iraq to take out US forces. The only way that Iran may have to do this, if any attack were launched from Iraq into Iran by US forces, and only in that case all bets are off.

Kermanshah1

07-16-2007, 04:13 AM

That kind of statements is not logical. Iran will not and it is not in it's war plan to attack Iraq to take out US forces. The only way that Iran may have to do this, if any attack were launched from Iraq into Iran by US forces, and only in that case all bets are off.

Why would you think so? It would be very easy to invade Iraq, specially with insurgents help. Iran cuold directly strike the faw peninsula and then take Basra, the British in the south wouldn't be such big problem. There aren't enough coalition forces in the south and the Iraqi army with 10,000 trained soldiers wouldn't put up a big problem either if they decide to help the US. The Mahdi army with 160,000 men joins Iran and then the south will be taken quick. An other invasion should be launched to take baghdad, the insurgents are very powerfull in the province in between Iran and Baghdad, Iran cuold be at Baghdad in a day if everything goes well, then the troops from the south arrie aswell together with the mahdi army and then they together with the insurgents in Baghdad capture the city. If they then leave the Kurdish north there is only one province left and that one is controlled by insurgents. Fire missiles into Afghanistan but don't do a land invasion there and do not attack any Arab gulf states. If it is done this way the Americans would surrander, not properly ofcourse but like in Vietnam a disguised surrander. But that's good enough

Zraver

07-16-2007, 10:54 AM

Chaos,

Zarver, as an israeli i can tell you that IDF is very motivated. specially becasue of whats going on there at the moment.

In the last war the IDF showed a real reluctance to press the attack or almost no real tacitcal skill.

Vlad,

How will Iran re-inforce the Islands? The goal of the US will be to keep the oil flowing so allthat is needed is cntrol of the missiel firing parts of the Island, the rest of the Island can be reduced at leisure.

As for the fleet defense missions those always exist and do not detract from the avaiable offensive punch of a carrier. SEAD missions are offensive and part of one of the two missions I assigned the Navy, reduction fo the coastal radar net. The only other offensive mission is USMC support.

defensive missions and non penetration issions inclusing ground support in Iraq can be done by USAF craft basedin and around the gulf.

Kermanshah,

The Mahdi Army can cut the roads but not keep them cut and might be well advised to study "Roukes Drift, Isawanda, Batogne, and Ke Shan". Reducing the British in the South will be bloody and might well cut the heart out of the insurgents. To this point coaltion troops have bene fighting a gentlemens war with rules of engagement and minimum force. Faced with signifigant garrisons having been swarmed under and others threatened a ring of fire can be laid down civillian causalties be dammed.

Gettign signifigant forces from Iran's military into Iraq would take a month, althought IRRG units could be in action faster with harrasement missions.
Moving a mechanized army takes time tanks are not kept armed, soilders ahve to be called back from leave, manning levels brought up, a maintence surge, routes prepared, bridiging equipment stock piled, SAM sites levelled and surveyed, road march and feeding scedules, decpetion efforts, stockpiling wrecker and fuel truck assets, road march seperation/distance. Alot of this can be done before hand, but some of it cannot (see below for examples).

Wrecker Assets- Everyone knows any large scale Iranian troop movement towards the Iraqi border will bring US TacAir down on them. The world remembers the Highway of death when a few destroyed/stopped tanks stopped the retreat out of Kuwait City and led to the destruction of thousands of viehicles and the deaths of thousands of men. To prevent that happening Iran will have to stock pile wrecker assets (probably civiilain tow trucks and thier drivers) along the route to support the invading units organic wrecker assets to keep the road open.

Road March Distance/ seperation. Iran cannot jsut bunch its forces up and charge into Iraq. Closley spaced viehicles invite cluster bomb attacks so they must be spaced. If a Divsion has 2000 viehicles spaced 10M apart the divsional train is snake strecthing some 200KM from tip to tail. At 25kph and with normal breaks and more than an 8 hour march just for the tail elements to pass the start point of the lead elements

Oriellien

07-16-2007, 10:57 AM

Why would you think so? It would be very easy to invade Iraq, specially with insurgents help. Iran cuold directly strike the faw peninsula and then take Basra, the British in the south wouldn't be such big problem. There aren't enough coalition forces in the south and the Iraqi army with 10,000 trained soldiers wouldn't put up a big problem either if they decide to help the US. The Mahdi army with 160,000 men joins Iran and then the south will be taken quick. An other invasion should be launched to take baghdad, the insurgents are very powerfull in the province in between Iran and Baghdad, Iran cuold be at Baghdad in a day if everything goes well, then the troops from the south arrie aswell together with the mahdi army and then they together with the insurgents in Baghdad capture the city. If they then leave the Kurdish north there is only one province left and that one is controlled by insurgents. Fire missiles into Afghanistan but don't do a land invasion there and do not attack any Arab gulf states. If it is done this way the Americans would surrander, not properly ofcourse but like in Vietnam a disguised surrander. But that's good enough

The sucess of Iran in a war would depend on fighting on the defensive, IE on Iran's terms. If Iran did that I think you would see the US regrouping into their safe zones, IE away from major cities except for closed off areas, and just wait for insurgents/soldiers to come with everything in their arsenals.

Kiaar

07-16-2007, 11:11 AM

It's also important to note with the suggestion of Iran attacking into Iraq, that while some groups like the Mehdi Army would help Iran as much as they could, some groups would fight against it.

My guess would be the entire Sunni population wouldn't be too happy about Iran coming in any more than they were about the US, and you would probably see them fighting Iran and their allies.

And as has been said, Iran doesn't have the offensive ability to really attack far into Iraq AND defend their country at the same time.

Kermanshah1

07-16-2007, 11:19 AM

The sucess of Iran in a war would depend on fighting on the defensive, IE on Iran's terms. If Iran did that I think you would see the US regrouping into their safe zones, IE away from major cities except for closed off areas, and just wait for insurgents/soldiers to come with everything in their arsenals.

They don't go to those places, Iran can easily free the south. The British and Polish armies defending there are so small (5500 British, 900 Polish, 638 Australian, 460 Deens, totals: 7,489 so ~7,500) and I think their soldiers would surrander without many casualties at any side. Iran would outnumber them so much that the soldiers would know they would have no chance. They will defenetly not fight to the death, look at what happened to the British marines. For the rest they only need to take Baghdad and you said the Americans would stay out of the Major cities. Iran then doesn't go to the north and the Americans are not that powerfull in the south, that's more the British wich would be defeated.

Afghanistan in the other hand is not a good idea to attack at all for the following reasons.

Iran should not get Pakistan involved, although I think Iran can beat Pakistan Pakistan together with the US can beat Iran and Pakistan has nukes...
It would involve many European natoins and it is best for Iran to fight as less possible amounth of nations.
The Taliban is one of the Biggest enemies of Iran.
The US allies in Afghanistan are supported by Iran.

It's also important to note with the suggestion of Iran attacking into Iraq, that while some groups like the Mehdi Army would help Iran as much as they could, some groups would fight against it.

My guess would be the entire Sunni population wouldn't be too happy about Iran coming in any more than they were about the US, and you would probably see them fighting Iran and their allies.

And as has been said, Iran doesn't have the offensive ability to really attack far into Iraq AND defend their country at the same time.

Iran only takes the South and kickes the US out of Baghdad. The don't invade the Sunni terretories or the Kurish North. Also it has been proven Iran is sending weapons to the Sunni insurgents

Kiaar

07-16-2007, 11:23 AM

Iran only takes the South and kickes the US out of Baghdad. The don't invade the Sunni terretories or the Kurish North. Also it has been proven Iran is sending weapons to the Sunni insurgents

Problem is though, the best way for Iran to have a chance at defeating the US would be to play defensive where the US' airpower and superior firepower can be somewhat mitigated.

Once they go into Iraq, they would have to go out in the open, use the roads to transport supplies, armor, etc. and keep all those soldiers armed and fed, which is much more difficult on the attack. This also makes Iranian troops and vehicles more or less target practice for US airpower, which Iran would have no chance of matching at home, let alone somewhere else.

Kermanshah1

07-16-2007, 11:29 AM

Problem is though, the best way for Iran to have a chance at defeating the US would be to play defensive where the US' airpower and superior firepower can be somewhat mitigated.

Once they go into Iraq, they would have to go out in the open, use the roads to transport supplies, armor, etc. and keep all those soldiers armed and fed, which is much more difficult on the attack. This also makes Iranian troops and vehicles more or less target practice for US airpower, which Iran would have no chance of matching at home, let alone somewhere else.

Bit it is the British and Polish that are in the south. With 900 men armies tey have no chance and if Iran takes the Faw Peninsula they can't send to troops in either. Except if they want ot send new ones in via Saudi Arabia but Iran could easily take all land passed that border and the area by Jordans border in insurgent ruled terretory.

Kiaar

07-16-2007, 12:00 PM

Bit it is the British and Polish that are in the south. With 900 men armies tey have no chance and if Iran takes the Faw Peninsula they can't send to troops in either. Except if they want ot send new ones in via Saudi Arabia but Iran could easily take all land passed that border and the area by Jordans border in insurgent ruled terretory.

The US though has 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, and they will almost certainly send a big chunk of them to help the Brits, and US airpower can be used from anywhere in the region regardless of where Iran is attacking inside Iraq.

chaos

07-16-2007, 12:32 PM

In the last war the IDF showed a real reluctance to press the attack or almost no real tacitcal skill.

thats becasue units in IDF were sent in with no orders, just get in and kill them. it wasnt IDF fault, but the 6 years in area like gaza and west bank didnt do good with the IDF.

your talking like the IDF is weak army, but infact the US army come to learn urban tactics here. in the gulf war usa failed to destroy the scud lunchers, which are bigger then the Zilzal rockets and Fajer 3 that were destoryed in Lebanon by israel.

what missiles the USA navy has against anti-ship missiles? if 1 ship will be destroyed, its like an iranain win, no?

Kermanshah1

07-16-2007, 02:19 PM

The US though has 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, and they will almost certainly send a big chunk of them to help the Brits, and US airpower can be used from anywhere in the region regardless of where Iran is attacking inside Iraq.

If Iran does it quickly and reaches Baghdad before the US can stop them in the south the US is finished in Iraq. Insurgents in Baghdad would be fighting them, Insurgents from out Baghdad would attack the city and Iranians would attack the city and with no allies left Iran can get the US out of there quickly, do you think those 150,000 are going to fight to the death? No, if Iran killes over 10,000 the rest is finished, with 3000 casualties the U:s has 25000 injured troops, with 10000 that would be 3x as much, so it would be 75,000 injured and 10000 killed so US would have 65,000 left wich would by then already have fled or surrandered, Iran could get out there with less than 30,000 deaths. Unless all Americans decide to fight to the death and then that would cost Iran around 400,000 (to kill all 150,000).

Vladimir80

07-16-2007, 03:51 PM

I think you folks is forgetting that if Iran invades Iraq the Iraqi Sunnis will fight and then drag in all the Gulf states. It would be bigger than just the US and attacking US led Gulf coalition would be disaster unless Iran is defending. Defenders always have advantage over attackers.

Overseer

07-16-2007, 04:41 PM

Defenders always have advantage over attackers.

I don't think so Vladimir. It really depends. Personally, I think attacker has the advantage, because attacker dictates the time, and places of battle, which are unknown to the defender. This is especially true in modern era, where war are fought with "stand-off" weapons (eg. missiles, long range artilleries, fighters and bombers), where the attacker does not have to take any damage while dishing out maximum damage to the defender.

I can also understand what you mean by the "defender has the advantage over attacker" - that is assuming the attacker does not know the terrain, and the intelligence on defender. In today's world, satellite imaging, UAV, over-horizon-radars and signal intelligence operations basically give attacker enormous advantage that traditionally was given to the defender.

Plus, you know what they say.... "Attack is the best form of defence"... ;)

Oriellien

07-16-2007, 05:01 PM

I don't think so Vladimir. It really depends. Personally, I think attacker has the advantage, because attacker dictates the time, and places of battle, which are unknown to the defender. This is especially true in modern era, where war are fought with "stand-off" weapons (eg. missiles, long range artilleries, fighters and bombers), where the attacker does not have to take any damage while dishing out maximum damage to the defender.

I can also understand what you mean by the "defender has the advantage over attacker" - that is assuming the attacker does not know the terrain, and the intelligence on defender. In today's world, satellite imaging, UAV, over-horizon-radars and signal intelligence operations basically give attacker enormous advantage that traditionally was given to the defender.

Plus, you know what they say.... "Attack is the best form of defence"... ;)

Hezbollah would argue differently.

Zraver

07-16-2007, 05:38 PM

If Iran does it quickly and reaches Baghdad before the US can stop them in the south the US is finished in Iraq. Insurgents in Baghdad would be fighting them, Insurgents from out Baghdad would attack the city and Iranians would attack the city and with no allies left Iran can get the US out of there quickly, do you think those 150,000 are going to fight to the death? No, if Iran killes over 10,000 the rest is finished, with 3000 casualties the U:s has 25000 injured troops, with 10000 that would be 3x as much, so it would be 75,000 injured and 10000 killed so US would have 65,000 left wich would by then already have fled or surrandered, Iran could get out there with less than 30,000 deaths. Unless all Americans decide to fight to the death and then that would cost Iran around 400,000 (to kill all 150,000).

You do not understand US Military history, we don't surrender very often. From Custer, to Bataan, to Bastonge to the Chosin Resevoir, to Ke Shan, to Mogadishu US Military units are extremily reluctant to surrender. Add this reluctance to give up to America's ability to deleiver massive air power and in a worst case scenerio lay down a ring of fire (either nuclear or nun nuclear via capret bombing) and the ability to over run the green zone is in doubt. US Airpower and ring of fire tactics are also avialalbe to US allies. If the Brits and the Poles turtle up and force the Mahdi light infantry and Quds commandoes to dig them out the air power facto will play a huge role.

thats becasue units in IDF were sent in with no orders, just get in and kill them. it wasnt IDF fault, but the 6 years in area like gaza and west bank didnt do good with the IDF.

your talking like the IDF is weak army, but infact the US army come to learn urban tactics here. in the gulf war usa failed to destroy the scud lunchers, which are bigger then the Zilzal rockets and Fajer 3 that were destoryed in Lebanon by israel.

Orders or no orders tactically profficent commanders would not have sent unsupported tanks up the center of narrow valleys leaving thier flanks exposed. I watched Hezzi video that shows attacks from 3 different angles agiasnt exposed tanks.

US cross training is not to learn MOUT, we are the masters of city fighting. It was urban counter insurgency training her ethe goal was not to take a city but provide order and security.

The IDF failed to defeat an enemy that gave Israel the initive by turtling up and waited to die in place, so how good are they? The IDF never engage din methodical reduction of the bunker complexes that were often not mutally supporting which should have Israel destroy each one peace meal.

what missiles the USA navy has against anti-ship missiles? if 1 ship will be destroyed, its like an iranain win, no?

SM-3 and RAM

Sinking a single warship would not be an Iranian win, anythig smaller than amphib/helo carrier or a one of the Ticons would jsut be a combat loss. Iran doe snot realsitically have the ability to sink a CVN unless one is in the gulf when the war starts even then its a big maybe.

Oreillian,

Hezbollah would argue differently.

Hezzbollah should have been defeated and vs a competent force would ahve been. The IDF had gone stale and beleive its own propaganda. Round two will probaly be much different. The same thing happened to the Russians in Grozny. They got smacked and learned the lesson, the IDF probalby will as well.

The differnace between attacker and defneder is one of strategy and tactics. The attacker gets to set the tempo, intiate the fight, intial troop concentration, and choose the initial place of battle. The defender genrally has better cover, short lines of communication etc.

Vladimir80

07-16-2007, 08:09 PM

Plus, you know what they say.... "Attack is the best form of defence"... ;)

That's what Bush said going into Iraq premptively... has that worked? :worried2:

Overseer

07-17-2007, 02:21 AM

That's what Bush said going into Iraq premptively... has that worked? :worried2:

You are right, no, it doesn't work.

Kermanshah1

07-17-2007, 04:41 AM

You do not understand US Military history, we don't surrender very often. From Custer, to Bataan, to Bastonge to the Chosin Resevoir, to Ke Shan, to Mogadishu US Military units are extremily reluctant to surrender. Add this reluctance to give up to America's ability to deleiver massive air power and in a worst case scenerio lay down a ring of fire (either nuclear or nun nuclear via capret bombing) and the ability to over run the green zone is in doubt. US Airpower and ring of fire tactics are also avialalbe to US allies. If the Brits and the Poles turtle up and force the Mahdi light infantry and Quds commandoes to dig them out the air power facto will play a huge role.

If Iran cuts of the Faw Peninsula how are the Poles going to send in more men? Via Saudi Arabia? Do that (if you want an other 9-11). US units wouldn't surrander soldiers would, not intire units but just many soldiers from different ones, the rest would retreat. Probably into to Turkey.

SM-3 and RAM

Sinking a single warship would not be an Iranian win, anythig smaller than amphib/helo carrier or a one of the Ticons would jsut be a combat loss. Iran doe snot realsitically have the ability to sink a CVN unless one is in the gulf when the war starts even then its a big maybe.

If Iran attacks Iraq the US would have to bring a carrier into the Gulf.

Hezzbollah should have been defeated and vs a competent force would ahve been. The IDF had gone stale and beleive its own propaganda. Round two will probaly be much different. The same thing happened to the Russians in Grozny. They got smacked and learned the lesson, the IDF probalby will as well.

I don't think so...

The differnace between attacker and defneder is one of strategy and tactics. The attacker gets to set the tempo, intiate the fight, intial troop concentration, and choose the initial place of battle. The defender genrally has better cover, short lines of communication etc.

The defender has a lot of advantages over the attacker. The air battles will be over their airspace meaning they can use their air defence, also this would enable them to use their whole air force while the attacker can't. The defender (usually) has the population behind them. The will use their entire army and even mobilize reserves many others to make thier army larger while the attacker can not possibly send their entire army and has to send a part of their army (US can not send 1.7 Million troops, more likeley 5/300,000 while Iran not only has 545,000 but also would mobilize 350,000 reserve, use 90,000 Basij, mobilize 300,000 IRGC & Basij reserves and probably an aditional million Basij volunteers making thier force 2,285,000). The defender is defending it's countrie while tha attacker has come to invade someones countrie that usually gives the defender a reason to fight harder (what would happen to the US if their soldiers lose? Don't think life would change much. What would happen to Iran if they lose? Their countrie would be destroyed as Iraq is). Also as you said the defender knows the terrain better, yes the attackers commanders can see the terrain on satilite but the defenders have actually been trained to defend on that piece of land.

Vladimir80

07-17-2007, 04:53 AM

what missiles the USA navy has against anti-ship missiles? if 1 ship will be destroyed, its like an iranain win, no?

SM-3 and RAM

SM-3 is NOT used against anti-shiping missiles... :sorry3:

chaos

07-17-2007, 01:01 PM

how good is the SM3 against BM?

Overseer

07-17-2007, 01:21 PM

SM-3 is NOT used against anti-shiping missiles... :sorry3:

I think SM-3 is designed to be used to engage ASM. The Standard Missile was designed specifically for that purpose, to engage the fleet wide threat including ASM.
It is integrated with the Aegis system specificaly for the CBG fleet defence, although it wasn't specifically mention anywhere.

SM-6 ERAM, the future Standard Missile

"The SM-6 ERAM (Extended Range Active Missile) is an under development upgraded version of the SM-2 designed to hit both aircraft and high performance cruise missiles. The missile combines the proven SM-2 airframe with a seeker from an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. By utilizing the seeker from the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, the SM-6 can offer the capability to hit targets outside the ships radar horizon, and therefore offer increased range as well as accuracy. The missile also takes advantage of both the SM-2 and AIM-120 AMRAAM's datalinking capability, and because it requires very little development is expected to be inexpensive to procure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile

Zraver

07-17-2007, 02:10 PM

If Iran cuts of the Faw Peninsula how are the Poles going to send in more men? Via Saudi Arabia? Do that (if you want an other 9-11). US units wouldn't surrander soldiers would, not intire units but just many soldiers from different ones, the rest would retreat. Probably into to Turkey.

Or they can turtle up and wait for US B-52's to blast the perimeter like at Ke Shan. Nor do I think you would see mass defections or desertions. American units have proven remarkably good at keeping command intergrity.

If Iran attacks Iraq the US would have to bring a carrier into the Gulf.

No they don't. KSA, Kuwait and Turkey provide plenty of airfeilds for Strike Eagles and Warthogs.

I don't think so...

Thinking the enemy will attack the same way they did last time is called the victory disease

The defender has a lot of advantages over the attacker. The air battles will be over their airspace meaning they can use their air defence, also this would enable them to use their whole air force while the attacker can't. The defender (usually) has the population behind them. The will use their entire army and even mobilize reserves many others to make thier army larger while the attacker can not possibly send their entire army and has to send a part of their army (US can not send 1.7 Million troops, more likeley 5/300,000 while Iran not only has 545,000 but also would mobilize 350,000 reserve, use 90,000 Basij, mobilize 300,000 IRGC & Basij reserves and probably an aditional million Basij volunteers making thier force 2,285,000). The defender is defending it's countrie while tha attacker has come to invade someones countrie that usually gives the defender a reason to fight harder (what would happen to the US if their soldiers lose? Don't think life would change much. What would happen to Iran if they lose? Their countrie would be destroyed as Iraq is). Also as you said the defender knows the terrain better, yes the attackers commanders can see the terrain on satilite but the defenders have actually been trained to defend on that piece of land.

But the defender is handicapped by beign forced to defend more targets than are actually being attacked. Yes Iran has a large airforce but foightign defnesively it has to be spread out to back up Iran's mostly old SAM net. So the chances of beign efective with its older technology is low.

Iran's reserves and manpower don't really matter. Iran cannot even get a fraction of that into Iraq and keep it supplied. Ask a Chinese veteran about the difficulties of keeping a manpower intensive army fed under an American owned sky. The Fah penisula isn't Vietnam with its massive jungle canopy.

Kermanshah1

07-17-2007, 02:27 PM

Or they can turtle up and wait for US B-52's to blast the perimeter like at Ke Shan. Nor do I think you would see mass defections or desertions. American units have proven remarkably good at keeping command intergrity.

No they don't. KSA, Kuwait and Turkey provide plenty of airfeilds for Strike Eagles and Warthogs.

Thinking the enemy will attack the same way they did last time is called the victory disease

But the defender is handicapped by beign forced to defend more targets than are actually being attacked. Yes Iran has a large airforce but foightign defnesively it has to be spread out to back up Iran's mostly old SAM net. So the chances of beign efective with its older technology is low.

Iran's reserves and manpower don't really matter. Iran cannot even get a fraction of that into Iraq and keep it supplied. Ask a Chinese veteran about the difficulties of keeping a manpower intensive army fed under an American owned sky. The Fah penisula isn't Vietnam with its massive jungle canopy.

Iran can't get a fraction of it into Iraq? They where able to send 500,000 into Iraq in 1983 and then Iraq had airsupriority.

Vladimir80

07-17-2007, 04:14 PM

I think SM-3 is designed to be used to engage ASM.

SM-3 is used for ballistic targets... not see skimmers.

Persianbob

07-17-2007, 09:36 PM

Kiaar

07-17-2007, 10:53 PM

I am looking at least 3 of those buckets will sink,
Rest of it history U.s. can not defeat iran because tv monitors electrical gagets are going to be worthless in persian gulf soon
Go to you tube and say Iranian generals.

Unless Iran plans to carpet nuke the Iranian Gulf for the EMP, not likely. And even then EMP's only short circuit non-hardened electronics that are on at the moment the wave hits.

I didn't go to youtube, but there's no other way to generate an effect that you're talking about.

Zraver

07-17-2007, 11:37 PM

Iran can't get a fraction of it into Iraq? They where able to send 500,000 into Iraq in 1983 and then Iraq had airsupriority.

Iraq never had a large highly proficent airforce with specialized aircraft and muntions on the scale the US does. moving and then feeding and suppling 500,000 troops when B-52's and A-10's are at work is a far cry from dodging aging Su-7's

Vladimir80

07-18-2007, 02:03 AM

Unless Iran plans to carpet nuke the Iranian Gulf for the EMP, not likely. And even then EMP's only short circuit non-hardened electronics that are on at the moment the wave hits.

I didn't go to youtube, but there's no other way to generate an effect that you're talking about.

A nuclear detonation in the lower atmosphere would cause EMP wave for hundreds of miles to one thousand in diameter, depending on size of yield.

The US has not hardended equipment for EMP since end of Cold War. With the end of CCCP they didn't see it as "worth the cost."

Behrooz Boonabi

07-18-2007, 02:08 AM

Vladimir80

07-18-2007, 02:11 AM

Because vaccuum tubes are resistant in their own nature, there was no need to add much shielding.

I think you are right and that is the reason...

Zraver

07-18-2007, 02:37 AM

A nuclear detonation in the lower atmosphere would cause EMP wave for hundreds of miles to one thousand in diameter, depending on size of yield.

The US has not hardended equipment for EMP since end of Cold War. With the end of CCCP they didn't see it as "worth the cost."

actually the US is more EMP resistent now than at any time since the invention of the tranistor. Improving surge protection,hardened electronics, and fiber optic communications replacing old wire based telephone lines. If an EMP blast hit my house I would lose my fridge and hot water heater, and what ever lights were on if the surge was higher than the appliances peak surge capacity.

Behrooz Boonabi

07-18-2007, 02:53 AM

actually the US is more EMP resistent now than at any time since the invention of the tranistor. Improving surge protection,hardened electronics, and fiber optic communications replacing old wire based telephone lines. If an EMP blast hit my house I would lose my fridge and hot water heater, and what ever lights were on if the surge was higher than the appliances peak surge capacity.

NOoo, it will saturate any semiconductor material, silicon or germanium. To be resistant, it would need to be cupsulated in lead. That is likely to overheat.

Vladimir80

07-18-2007, 02:59 AM

NOoo, it will saturate any semiconductor material, silicon or germanium. To be resistant, it would need to be cupsulated in lead. That is likely to overheat.

I was regarding US white paper about the military but from what you saying we can detonate EMP over US and cripple them?

Behrooz Boonabi

07-18-2007, 03:58 AM

I was regarding US white paper about the military but from what you saying we can detonate EMP over US and cripple them?

A good one can do it. Some aircraft could fall out of the sky if it is strong enough. Specificly if there are dual engines.

Zraver

07-18-2007, 04:09 AM

NOoo, it will saturate any semiconductor material, silicon or germanium. To be resistant, it would need to be cupsulated in lead. That is likely to overheat.

NO, the pulse hs to have enough energy to overload the circuits peak surge capacity to cause a short. becuase most of my electronics are surge protected most of my stuff is safe.

I was regarding US white paper about the military but from what you saying we can detonate EMP over US and cripple them?

To cover enough the continental land mass to affect all 48 of the lower states you need two things

1- A really really big fission bomb (thermo-nuclear devices acutally short circuit thier own EMP blast via 1st stage ionisation of the atmosphere) or a Thermo-nuclear device so big it compensates for its own first stage (20 megaton plus)

2- You have to be loft it 1000 miles above the US so that the sight horizon takes in the entire nation. A smaller radius blast (300 mile circle) cna be achieved with a 30 miles hieght.

Iran does not have heavy lift orbital capability, a super fission or multi megaton thermonuclear technology. Even with a smaller fusion device Iran can not get a warhead high enough or far enough to threaten anyone but its direct neighbors.

Vladimir80

07-18-2007, 04:10 AM

We don't need to cripple ALL of US, just DC and NYC.

Kermanshah1

07-18-2007, 04:23 AM

We don't need to cripple ALL of US, just DC and NYC.

That would be wuite easy as NY is at the coast so you only need to send a nuclear submarine near the east coast of the US.

Behrooz Boonabi

07-18-2007, 05:20 AM

NO, the pulse hs to have enough energy to overload the circuits peak surge capacity to cause a short. becuase most of my electronics are surge protected most of my stuff is safe.

To cover enough the continental land mass to affect all 48 of the lower states you need two things

1- A really really big fission bomb (thermo-nuclear devices acutally short circuit thier own EMP blast via 1st stage ionisation of the atmosphere) or a Thermo-nuclear device so big it compensates for its own first stage (20 megaton plus)

2- You have to be loft it 1000 miles above the US so that the sight horizon takes in the entire nation. A smaller radius blast (300 mile circle) cna be achieved with a 30 miles hieght.

Iran does not have heavy lift orbital capability, a super fission or multi megaton thermonuclear technology. Even with a smaller fusion device Iran can not get a warhead high enough or far enough to threaten anyone but its direct neighbors.

Surg protection doesnt work in this case, surges are not the major problem.

Kiaar

07-18-2007, 10:49 AM

That would be wuite easy as NY is at the coast so you only need to send a nuclear submarine near the east coast of the US.

Of course you'd also need to get past American subs, which are leagues beyond anything Iran has in temrs of weaponry and electronics. I don't think any Iranian subs have that kind of range at the moment either.

Even if the missile was launched though you still need to then get past anti-missile systems, and deal with the nuclear onslaught of US fusion bombs in retaliation.

Kermanshah1

07-18-2007, 11:34 AM

Of course you'd also need to get past American subs, which are leagues beyond anything Iran has in temrs of weaponry and electronics. I don't think any Iranian subs have that kind of range at the moment either.

Even if the missile was launched though you still need to then get past anti-missile systems, and deal with the nuclear onslaught of US fusion bombs in retaliation.

Iran doesn't have nukes or a nuclear submarine so this couldn't happen now anyway. But if there comes a time Iran has got these Irans technolegy would be advanced enough to beat the US subs and US anti-missiles.

Kiaar

07-18-2007, 12:41 PM

Iran doesn't have nukes or a nuclear submarine so this couldn't happen now anyway. But if there comes a time Iran has got these Irans technolegy would be advanced enough to beat the US subs and US anti-missiles.

That would assume though that in the time it took to develop those capabilities, the US would not have advanced at all, which is unlikely.

Kermanshah1

07-18-2007, 12:46 PM

That would assume though that in the time it took to develop those capabilities, the US would not have advanced at all, which is unlikely.

Course they would have but Iran would advance faster. We are on the rise.

Kiaar

07-18-2007, 12:52 PM

Course they would have but Iran would advance faster. We are on the rise.

That's a baseless assumption. Iran is on the rise, but is nowhere near the status of emerging powers like India, China, etc. It's yet to be seen how far up Iran goes. Iran still has a long ways to go to be able to compete with the US, Russia, EU and the like economically or militarily.

It could happen, but probably not for a few decades at least. It's taken China quite a while to get where they are today, and they have a lot of natural resources and manpower. Iran is also still quite a ways behind in technology and vital industries such as aerospace.

Again, could it happen? yes. Will it happen in the near future? Probably not.

Kermanshah1

07-18-2007, 12:55 PM

That's a baseless assumption. Iran is on the rise, but is nowhere near the status of emerging powers like India, China, etc. It's yet to be seen how far up Iran goes. Iran still has a long ways to go to be able to compete with the US, Russia, EU and the like economically or militarily.

It could happen, but probably not for a few decades at least. It's taken China quite a while to get where they are today, and they have a lot of natural resources and manpower. Iran is also still quite a ways behind in technology and vital industries such as aerospace.

Again, could it happen? yes. Will it happen in the near future? Probably not.

Ofcourse it will take a few decades, I'm not saying it will only take Iran 2-3 years but it will happen. China and India were already further then Iran when the war enden and we started to rise. so that's why they are nearer to superpower status and the US and Russia were already superpowers then.

Kiaar

07-18-2007, 12:56 PM

Ofcourse it will take a few decades, I'm not saying it will only take Iran 2-3 years but it will happen. China and India were already further then Iran when the war enden and we started to rise. so that's why they are nearer to superpower status and the US and Russia were already superpowers then.

Ok fair enough. It's always interesting though when we try to make these predictions, because in 40 years it'll probably be something none of us ever expected :)

Zraver

07-18-2007, 07:56 PM

Course they would have but Iran would advance faster. We are on the rise.

Even using PPP Iran's military budget only comes to about 13 billion USD via PPP. This is less than 1/4 the US RnD budget. Iran does not have naval reactors, cannot build even full size DE attack subs let alone SSBM hulls, has invested about 0 USD in sonar technology, hasn't even begun to adress the problems firing an SLBM, its rocketry is primitive, has not yet developed its own nuke, let alone deployable thermo-nuclear warheads etc etc etc.

While Iran tries to catch up to where the US is today, the US will be working on tommorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. It is entirely probalby that Iran will never close the gap except in a few widely photographed examples like a fighter or tank. Building and deploying a ballistic missile submarine and all of its attendant systems would break Iran's economy and still would not adress the US lead in infowar, airpower, ground combat and other technologies.

To close the gap you have to spend more in RnD than who you are seeking to over come. Sinc the US RnD budget is nealry equal to half of Iran's total real dollar annual GDP thats not gonna happen.

Janbaz

07-18-2007, 09:35 PM

chaos

07-19-2007, 12:35 AM

To close the gap you have to spend more in RnD than who you are seeking to over come. Sinc the US RnD budget is nealry equal to half of Iran's total real dollar annual GDP thats not gonna happen.

sometimes its not only about money.

1- United States is 9 times larger than Iran.
2- United States has 5 times larger population than Iran.
3- The US yearly budget runs in Thrillion and Iran around mid 50 Billion.
4- The US has been pioneer in Aerospace, Aviation, and many high technical fields since couple of centries, Iran started since late 1980s.

its not a good exmple. i cant say same things about iran "vs" israel. israel is smaller,less population, iran has more money and natrual resources.

Zarver, iran cant think about close the gap with USA, maybe with europe. after that there is still a long way to USA.

Vladimir80

07-19-2007, 12:43 AM

Bravo, well said. Great Job USA. There is no logic to compare Iran with US.

Why is you wasting your breath with this guy? It is just American bravado... let him puff his chest and do his Tarzan impression without being drawn into it. Everyone knows Iran has to use asymmetrical warfare to defeat them.

Scythian

07-19-2007, 12:56 AM

Swarm attack with boats and missile and aircraft at the same time.Bring the US Navy to it's knees then cut them off.The Iranian navy has been around before the US was even a dream.They have a more historical and better naval history then the US.

Zraver

07-19-2007, 01:40 AM

Bravo, well said. Great Job USA. There is no logic to compare Iran with US.
1- United States is 9 times larger than Iran.
2- United States has 5 times larger population than Iran.
3- The US yearly budget runs in Thrillion and Iran around mid 50 Billion.
4- The US has been pioneer in Aerospace, Aviation, and many high technical fields since couple of centries, Iran started since late 1980s.
5- United states uses it armforces to project it's power all over the world, Iran uses it's armforces to help unfortunate people. http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=18483
[quote]

I could swear that the USN played a critical role in savign the survivors in the Tusnami, and I remember USAF C-130's loade dwith relief supplies flying to Iran after the earthquake.

[quote]6- If you disagree with US you get bombed and killed, If you disagree with Iran, you will be in FOX, CNN, and many news channels and papers.

I guess Iran is safe as war with France is next, we never agree.

Dude, there are many differences. No Iranian is claiming Iran is a head of United states (there might several areas that we are) but in general, since United States is enemy of Iran and enemy of people of the world, people like to compare the Iranian Armed forces with United States. We have only a decade and a few years in research and building things. If Iran would of had couple of centries into research and development, I gurantee you the world would of been in better place, since Iranians in general likes to help humanity and opposite of US.

The claim was that Iran would catch and surpass the US to the point it could manuver a boomer off the US coast and launch an EMP attack.

Chaos,

sometimes its not only about money.

ideas are free, buildign them takes money.

its not a good exmple. i cant say same things about iran "vs" israel. israel is smaller,less population, iran has more money and natrual resources

Israel started out with a highly developed brain trust while Iran lost much of its intelligencia in 1979. Israel also has about a 40 year head start and mostly sticks to improving existing deisgns.

Scythian,

Swarm attack with boats and missile and aircraft at the same time.Bring the US Navy to it's knees then cut them off.The Iranian navy has been around before the US was even a dream.They have a more historical and better naval history then the US.

Can you name one great naval power Persia ever beat? I can't.

Now the US list of naval accomplishments isn't that impressive we just hold the record for largest battle fleet engagement (leyete Gulf), largest carier engagement (Leyete Gulf), most sucessfull submarine camapaign (blockade of Japan), most amphibious landings, most sucessful anti-submarine campaign (batlte of the atlantic W/RN help), First Nuclear powered warships and can only count the Royal Navy, Kreigsmarine, and Imperial Japanese Navy as defeated opponents.

Why is you wasting your breath with this guy? It is just American bravado... let him puff his chest and do his Tarzan impression without being drawn into it. Everyone knows Iran has to use asymmetrical warfare to defeat them

If I puffed up the US half as much as you defend the Rodina that might be true. However I simply correct mistakes others make regarding American capabilties. Like you said the use of asymetrical warfare may be a forc eequalizer, but if Iran could match the US like some her ethink they can then it would not need asymetric appraoches.

Vladimir80

07-19-2007, 02:36 AM

If I puffed up the US half as much as you defend the Rodina that might be true.

I have never defended Rodina... they is nothing but a bunch of opportunists riding on wave of public opinion. To hell with Rodina...Yadynaya Rossiya is the path we must take.

However I simply correct mistakes others make regarding American capabilties. Like you said the use of asymetrical warfare may be a forc eequalizer, but if Iran could match the US like some her ethink they can then it would not need asymetric appraoches.

No one here thinks Iran can match the US... they know Iran can counter them. It is two distinct concepts you need to stop mixing together. I know you are not stupid so stop with the mindless chest thumping. There is a couple Americans on this board who get along well and they do so by being polite and discrete. You are not a child and when someone comes here to say Iran's F-4s can kill F-22 you just need to let the kid have their say and leave it. With views like that you are just wasting your time responding. I have heard you overate the abilities of many US systems and force concepts, maybe with a little more knowledge than children but it is still based on pride and not facts. I think the most silly was saying the USMC would only have to take littoral around Hormuz when it obvious IRGC throw everything they have at 10,000 defenders trying to hold a beachhead. The US is not invincible and does not have a fool proof answer for every contingency. I'm sure they like to think they do but it is just impossible. Countries across the globe is working on asymmetrical strategies to attack the US and they have been quite succesful. They used your own planes to destroy your financial centers, a speed boat devastated a multi billion dollar warship, IEDs... ect. Iran has some pretty interesting concepts that experts have deemed major threats. If it was so easy to take out Iran Bush would have done it by now. We know he never cared before with Iraq. The fact is it is not easy and is impossible being tied up in Iraq. He has weakened your nation by cutting funding to JSF, F-22, and SSN procurement to go to his war in Iraq that your military will only be a fraction of it's current size. By the end of the next decade the US will be what Russia was to the Soviet Union... a mere shadow of it's former self. Especially when your president is Hilary Clinton.

Kermanshah1

07-19-2007, 05:07 AM

Zraver, you get me wrong. I said over 40/50 years Iran would have cought up the US. You are "proving me wrong" by saying the US has more advanced technolegy and spends more money. But that is now. from 2000 to 2005 Irans military expenditure went up by 40%! Yes Irans economy isn't good enough yet but it will be. US has 4x as large population and is 4x as large, so what. In 1979 Iran had 30 million now Iran has 70 million population. If we go and invade some countries it would be even more and the countrie would be larger.

Zraver

07-19-2007, 03:31 PM

I have never defended Rodina... they is nothing but a bunch of opportunists riding on wave of public opinion. To hell with Rodina...Yadynaya Rossiya is the path we must take.

No one here thinks Iran can match the US... they know Iran can counter them. It is two distinct concepts you need to stop mixing together. I know you are not stupid so stop with the mindless chest thumping. There is a couple Americans on this board who get along well and they do so by being polite and discrete. You are not a child and when someone comes here to say Iran's F-4s can kill F-22 you just need to let the kid have their say and leave it. With views like that you are just wasting your time responding. I have heard you overate the abilities of many US systems and force concepts, maybe with a little more knowledge than children but it is still based on pride and not facts. I think the most silly was saying the USMC would only have to take littoral around Hormuz when it obvious IRGC throw everything they have at 10,000 defenders trying to hold a beachhead. The US is not invincible and does not have a fool proof answer for every contingency. I'm sure they like to think they do but it is just impossible. Countries across the globe is working on asymmetrical strategies to attack the US and they have been quite succesful. They used your own planes to destroy your financial centers, a speed boat devastated a multi billion dollar warship, IEDs... ect. Iran has some pretty interesting concepts that experts have deemed major threats. If it was so easy to take out Iran Bush would have done it by now. We know he never cared before with Iraq. The fact is it is not easy and is impossible being tied up in Iraq. He has weakened your nation by cutting funding to JSF, F-22, and SSN procurement to go to his war in Iraq that your military will only be a fraction of it's current size. By the end of the next decade the US will be what Russia was to the Soviet Union... a mere shadow of it's former self. Especially when your president is Hilary Clinton.

No the US cannot couter everything no one can. However I do bleeive the US can sucessfully prosecute a war agaisnt Iran if it wanted too. Irans asymetrical aproach is full of exploitable weaknesses if the US acts ad initio.

We both know that US power will be at a maximum for the frist 6-8 hours of a war. Iran will not be able to effectively respond in a co-ordinated manner before that. I contend that that window gives the US a change to establish a cordon to keep the oil flowing.

You might not think 10,000 heavily supported USMC troops can take the 3 most critcal Islands, but I do. Reinforcing them in streangth will be almost impossible for Iran and IIRG. Iran's warplans rely on Abu Musa wich has a garrison of 4,000. Without that Island 80% of Iran's shore based AShM do not have the range to reach the shipping channel, Iran also depends on 2 off shore platforms to provide course correction data and without it Iran's older Silkworm missiles are useless. These two things if they go in the US's favor in the forst 6 hours force Iran to rely on its naval and air assets and becuasethese have to operate outside Iran and vs nuetral shipping and GCC assets allow the regionally based USAF tac air to be used greately evening the playing feild specially if GCC naval assets are used in conjunction with USN assets to protect the tankers.

Who ever acts first has the best chance of winning. If the US builds up its power in the region then its a race. Will Iran sit still and wait it out or will it act first? There are major advantages and disadvantages to either option. Politcally acting first means the US gets to use all of its in theater assets at will and how ever they wish beucase Iran will be the bad guy attacking the worlds energy supply. The US will even get UN, NATO and allied support as other nations rush to defend thier energy. If Iran waits for the US to strike first so it gets the political good will it is betting that it has enough assets to ride out the first 6-8 hours and still respond effectively with what ever remains in order to force the UNSC to act to stop the war beofre the US can dismantle its nuclear infastructure.

For the US, acting second is a disaster. If Iran starts the war the US losses becuase the worlds economy tanks no matter who wins th war in the end. But for the US to strike first with enough power to ensure a win requires the build up of naval forces that telegraphs the move and lets Iran mobalize and hide assets. The US could start with fewer assets and rely on Suprise, but that means leaving a carrier in the Gulf as bait until the war starts and then trying to get it past the Straits safely or hiding it in Littoral waters near the widest part of the Gulf perhaps surronded by empty tankers as sheilds niether is very attractive for 5000 men and 36 billion bollars.

Persianbob

07-19-2007, 04:28 PM

Police Mentality
Always Come in 8 against 1
Think about it Hollow drums

Use Iranian "Vasvaus " they can defeat anyone

immortalguard

07-20-2007, 02:46 PM

Even using PPP Iran's military budget only comes to about 13 billion USD via PPP. This is less than 1/4 the US RnD budget. Iran does not have naval reactors, cannot build even full size DE attack subs let alone SSBM hulls, has invested about 0 USD in sonar technology, hasn't even begun to adress the problems firing an SLBM, its rocketry is primitive, has not yet developed its own nuke, let alone deployable thermo-nuclear warheads etc etc etc.

While Iran tries to catch up to where the US is today, the US will be working on tommorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. It is entirely probalby that Iran will never close the gap except in a few widely photographed examples like a fighter or tank. Building and deploying a ballistic missile submarine and all of its attendant systems would break Iran's economy and still would not adress the US lead in infowar, airpower, ground combat and other technologies.

To close the gap you have to spend more in RnD than who you are seeking to over come. Sinc the US RnD budget is nealry equal to half of Iran's total real dollar annual GDP thats not gonna happen.

Zraver, my dear dear retarded American Friend,

Everyone is trying to convince you with logic; a language that you simply are incapable of understanding. Let me put it in a language that even a simpleton redneck such as yourself can understand. You people simply don't have the genetic makeup to amount to anything. Your current situation is just the result of luck. Two world wars which devastated almost the whole world, but hardly touched you; that's mainly the reason for your current situation not your feeble minds.

We may not currently be at your level, but we have everything we need to get there in a rush and that's the main reason your leaders want to stop us at any price; they very well know that once we start, we don't stop improving till we are the best. Our history is the proof; about a 1000 years ago, when your ancestors were still clinging to the trees, Kharazmi (or AlKharazami as you morons would call him if you ever know of his existence) was calculating the mass and volume of the earth. Now, I don't cling to the history and just pride myself in our past glory, but that is a sign of things to come. We have had some of the greatest mathematicians. We were using batteries about 2000 years ago, and it is guessed that it was being used for galvanizing metal sheets.

Can your feeble mind even imagine that 2000 years ago someone was using batteries, and I've seen the picture, the components are so similar to the components of contemporary batteries.

To summarize, we are genetically far far superior to you. Given that, we can do the same thing that you do with a million dollar with just a 100 dollar. Even the weapons that you make have the footprints of Chinese, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, Eastern Europeans, and the least goes on and on. To put it simply, you don't make anything, you attract great minds from across the globe to make them for you. Without them, you are nothing.

On the other hand, an Iranian engineer will kill himself to be the best. That's part of our culture. Come back in 2000 years, assuming you exist then, and if you're lucky you might have culturally become evolved enough to have that mentality of being the best for real and not thinking a couple of girls in miniskirts are the culture. Can't say that a couple of girls in miniskirt hasn't worked for you of course; that's how you attract all these educated people and scientists from around the globe.

In any case, the moral of the story, I'm superior to you, and as a result, I'd beat you at anything; and that's exactly how it is going to be at national level.

:xmas_emot3:

Kiaar

07-20-2007, 03:13 PM

Zraver, my dear dear retarded American Friend,

Everyone is trying to convince you with logic; a language that you simply are incapable of understanding. Let me put it in a language that even a simpleton redneck such as yourself can understand. You people simply don't have the genetic makeup to amount to anything. Your current situation is just the result of luck. Two world wars which devastated almost the whole world, but hardly touched you; that's mainly the reason for your current situation not your feeble minds.

We may not currently be at your level, but we have everything we need to get there in a rush and that's the main reason your leaders want to stop us at any price; they very well know that once we start, we don't stop improving till we are the best. Our history is the proof; about a 1000 years ago, when your ancestors were still clinging to the trees, Kharazmi (or AlKharazami as you morons would call him if you ever know of his existence) was calculating the mass and volume of the earth. Now, I don't cling to the history and just pride myself in our past glory, but that is a sign of things to come. We have had some of the greatest mathematicians. We were using batteries about 2000 years ago, and it is guessed that it was being used for galvanizing metal sheets.

Can your feeble mind even imagine that 2000 years ago someone was using batteries, and I've seen the picture, the components are so similar to the components of contemporary batteries.

To summarize, we are genetically far far superior to you. Given that, we can do the same thing that you do with a million dollar with just a 100 dollar. Even the weapons that you make have the footprints of Chinese, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, Eastern Europeans, and the least goes on and on. To put it simply, you don't make anything, you attract great minds from across the globe to make them for you. Without them, you are nothing.

On the other hand, an Iranian engineer will kill himself to be the best. That's part of our culture. Come back in 2000 years, assuming you exist then, and if you're lucky you might have culturally become evolved enough to have that mentality of being the best for real and not thinking a couple of girls in miniskirts are the culture. Can't say that a couple of girls in miniskirt hasn't worked for you of course; that's how you attract all these educated people and scientists from around the globe.

In any case, the moral of the story, I'm superior to you, and as a result, I'd beat you at anything; and that's exactly how it is going to be at national level.

:xmas_emot3:

I'm not sure "you're an idiot" quite covers this post. Just the complete ignorance of science and reality is astounding.

chaos

07-20-2007, 03:47 PM

On the other hand, an Iranian engineer will kill himself to be the best.
yeah, and your weapons prove that. NOT.
your engineers try hard and do nothing.

wow you guys were the smartest people on earth before 2000 years OMG u are elite. but now ur like a third world country so it doesnt matter.

To summarize, we are genetically far far superior to you.

jews and japanese are far superior to you.

Given that, we can do the same thing that you do with a million dollar with just a 100 dollar.
so where are your own missiles, airplanes,cars,boats and medicine?

In any case, the moral of the story, I'm superior to you, and as a result, I'd beat you at anything; and that's exactly how it is going to be at national level.

i know for sure that the american doesnt look bad as you.

good luck with your dreams, iranian super uber engineer.

Vladimir80

07-20-2007, 04:21 PM

No the US cannot couter everything no one can. However I do bleeive the US can sucessfully prosecute a war agaisnt Iran if it wanted too. Irans asymetrical aproach is full of exploitable weaknesses if the US acts ad initio.

The war in the ground in Iraq is only a taste of what is to come in Iran. They can't even handle that... don't try and put the cart before the horse.

We both know that US power will be at a maximum for the frist 6-8 hours of a war. Iran will not be able to effectively respond in a co-ordinated manner before that. I contend that that window gives the US a change to establish a cordon to keep the oil flowing.

Question is can US neutralize all threat to Gulf shipping in that time frame. There are three serious threats that US will have hard time nailing down... 1) mobile SSM launchers, 2) mine fields, 3) kilo/mini subs.
As we know CIA is one of the weakest intelligence arms in the world, you must rely soley on recon assets. Having seen (but not seen) some of the batteries on the beach I can say Iran knows how to hide their sh#t. The mine fields will be the greatest and most indiscriminate killer. USN is at an all time low in mine clearing capabilities, hence the need for LCS. The kilo subs have to be main target as they can lay the mines, fire the Shvals, and devistate straight traffic. The inability of US to stop Chinese electric boat from popping up within Shval range of Kitty Hawk illustrates the inability of US to counter this threat. I don't know what they going to do with the mini-subs but good luck finding them.

You might not think 10,000 heavily supported USMC troops can take the 3 most critcal Islands, but I do. Reinforcing them in streangth will be almost impossible for Iran and IIRG.

That can't be the only targets... they have to take the littoral as well to prevent further launch thus making this invasion stupid. It is all or nothing with Iran, you can't do it half assed.

Zraver

07-20-2007, 06:03 PM

The war in the ground in Iraq is only a taste of what is to come in Iran. They can't even handle that... don't try and put the cart before the horse.

Iraq is a different situation

Question is can US neutralize all threat to Gulf shipping in that time frame. There are three serious threats that US will have hard time nailing down... 1) mobile SSM launchers, 2) mine fields, 3) kilo/mini subs.
As we know CIA is one of the weakest intelligence arms in the world, you must rely soley on recon assets. Having seen (but not seen) some of the batteries on the beach I can say Iran knows how to hide their sh#t. The mine fields will be the greatest and most indiscriminate killer. USN is at an all time low in mine clearing capabilities, hence the need for LCS. The kilo subs have to be main target as they can lay the mines, fire the Shvals, and devistate straight traffic. The inability of US to stop Chinese electric boat from popping up within Shval range of Kitty Hawk illustrates the inability of US to counter this threat. I don't know what they going to do with the mini-subs but good luck finding them.

Best bt for the US is to hit as many as possible in port and make sure any of the Kilo's at sea are being trailed by an attack sub so that they can be killed before the even know an attack is under way.

Also the Shval is not an anti-warship weapon. It's warhead is to small to create a large enough void to break the keel of a US vessel. They are a threat to tankers and were desinged to kill subs.

The mines are a huge threat and the one that worries me most, but currently I am not aware of any active mine belts for obvious politcal reasons. Iran seems to be relying on placign them after hostilties start

That can't be the only targets... they have to take the littoral as well to prevent further launch thus making this invasion stupid. It is all or nothing with Iran, you can't do it half assed.

Taking the coast of Iran it self is impossible. Luckily you don't have to. That coast fires the big missiles becuase of the range and they need course correction data so to nuetralize or reduce thier effectiveness you take the off shore platforms.

I am not sayignt he US will win, but that the US has the capability to win if things go right.

ImortalGuard,

Light Bulb
Transistor
Phonograph
Airplane
Machine Gun
Fission Bomb
Naval Nulear reactor
Nuclear reactor
Hydrogen Bomb
Gattling Gun
Cotton Gin
Cure for Yellow Fever
Steam turbine
Submarine
Telegraph
Computer
Sewing Machine
Artifical Heart
Most new drugs

the list is nealry endless. America has achieved more in 250 years than Persia has in 3000. If I start adding the inventions of my genetic ancestors (Celtic, Norse-German, French, English) the list goes off the chart. Besides the Laser (and even that was invented by a Persian American), what has Persia invented in the last 500 years?

While Iran talks about creating a satalite industry America has a lander about to land on the pole, Mars pole. You might not like it but my nation has created the richest most powerful society ever seen. It is precisley beucase we are an ethnic melting pot that we are so great.

Vladimir80

07-20-2007, 06:43 PM

Iraq is a different situation

You left out "not"...

Best bt for the US is to hit as many as possible in port and make sure any of the Kilo's at sea are being trailed by an attack sub so that they can be killed before the even know an attack is under way.

This would mean another premeptive strike... is the world ready for that?

Also the Shval is not an anti-warship weapon. It's warhead is to small to create a large enough void to break the keel of a US vessel. They are a threat to tankers and were desinged to kill subs.

The velocity is enough to go though the hull and with internal detonation will gut the keel of any ship.

The mines are a huge threat and the one that worries me most, but currently I am not aware of any active mine belts for obvious politcal reasons. Iran seems to be relying on placign them after hostilties start

Iran has historical precedence of laying them before hostilities begin. They will not wait if they see the writing on the wall.

Taking the coast of Iran it self is impossible. Luckily you don't have to.

Yes, you do... look at a map. Once you see you have to taking your admission makes the mission impossible.

Light Bulb - UK invention
Transistor - German invention
Phonograph - French invention
Airplane - French invention
Machine Gun - UK invention
Naval Nulear reactor
Nuclear reactor - same thing
Hydrogen Bomb - by 1 year...
Gattling Gun - to kill Indians
Cotton Gin - to make more slaves
Cure for Yellow Fever - there is no cure...
Steam turbine - ancient Greek invention
Submarine - Dutch invention
Telegraph - French invention
Computer - UK invention
Sewing Machine - UK invention
Artifical Heart
Most new drugs - that don't cure anything

the list is nealry endless. America has achieved more in 250 years than Persia has in 3000. If I start adding the inventions of my genetic ancestors (Celtic, Norse-German, French, English) the list goes off the chart. Besides the Laser (and even that was invented by a Persian American), what has Persia invented in the last 500 years?

While Iran talks about creating a satalite industry America has a lander about to land on the pole, Mars pole. You might not like it but my nation has created the richest most powerful society ever seen. It is precisley beucase we are an ethnic melting pot that we are so great.

The list of stolen inventions is nearly endless. You are claiming credit for things people already invented and American arrogance assume they invented it. Your nation steals credit for things they did not pioneer. Truly dispicable... :roflmao3:

Oriellien

07-20-2007, 07:04 PM

Immortal guard your a complete and utter idiot, in fact your just like a redneck in the KKK. Shut up :)

Vladimir, most of those inventions were contributed too just as much by US scientists then by foreigners. For example Edison contributed just as much as Davy. Before Edison lightbulbs were impractable, he made the long lasting filaments that make them what they are today.

Vladimir80

07-20-2007, 07:11 PM

Vladimir, most of those inventions were contributed too just as much by US scientists then by foreigners. For example Edison contributed just as much as Davy. Before Edison lightbulbs were impractable, he made the long lasting filaments that make them what they are today.

I'm not denying US contributions but they did not invent most of these things, merely working off the backs of others and claiming credit for it. It is truly disingenious.

Zraver

07-20-2007, 07:59 PM

Kermanshah1

07-21-2007, 03:52 AM

yeah, and your weapons prove that. NOT.
your engineers try hard and do nothing.

wow you guys were the smartest people on earth before 2000 years OMG u are elite. but now ur like a third world country so it doesnt matter.

jews and japanese are far superior to you.

so where are your own missiles, airplanes,cars,boats and medicine?

I believe Iran can beat the US but immortalguards comments where totally racist. He sounds like a nazi with his we are geneticly superior to you B-S. I'm Iranian but this is not the reason for our greatnes, no-one is geneticly superior.

But Chaos, you know as little as he does. I laugh at your comment of Jews being superior to us.:roflmao3: They are not, they just use the holocaust to get sympaty from others and so get others to help them with their dirty work.

Vladimir80

07-21-2007, 05:20 AM

Light Bulb - UK invention Edisons worked, davy's didn't really

He still invented it... example of US taking credit for others work.

Transistor - German invention No Invented by Bell Labratories from 45-51

Germans patented it 13 years before Bell Labs.

Phonograph - French invention Again NO the Phonautograph had no audible playback and could only record on the VISUAL medium ie lampblackened glass.

Another invention US took work of others and made it their own.

Airplane - French invention Uhmm NO Wilbur and Orville were Ameican

The French beat them by 6 years...

Machine Gun - UK invention No Hiram Maxim was American

He was a British citizen... :sorry3:

Hydrogen Bomb - by 1 year... actually 3, US tested an H-bomb in 52 (ivy Mike)

and CCCP was in 53'... one year

Gattling Gun - to kill Indians No actually to beat Southerners. The modenr M-61 is a diorect decendant of an electric naval gatling pulled out of a warehouse and given modern wiring and a slower cyclic rate.

It wasn't used to kill southerners... it was used to massacre American Indians.

Cotton Gin - to make more slaves To make more cotton, it acutally reduced the need for labor, which idaverdantly cuased a boom in cottton cultivation.

To make more cotton requiring more slaves to process it.

Cure for Yellow Fever - there is no cure... oops vacciantion

Which it hasn't distrubted to the rest of the world leaving others to suffer.

Steam turbine - ancient Greek invention the anceitn greek model was more of toy and not a larg eindustrial engine and also worked on completely different principles.

The modern steam turbine was invented by an Englishman... you still lose. :roflmao3:

Submarine - Dutch invention NO his was a submersable towed by boats it was not self propelled ie a submarine

It was self propelled... oars

Telegraph - French invention No the semaphore is not a telegraph. Actually I was wrong and it look to be a German/English/US shared idea as all three had indipendant invention and operation within 4 years of one another.

Proved yourself wrong... good.

Computer - UK invention No babbage never got his to work. The first programmable multi functio computer was the American tabulating machine of 1890

He still had the first patent and when built it worked. US based their designs off of it which is the whole point of US claiming inventions off others work.

Sewing Machine - UK invention NO none of thiers worked, the lock stitch method used by all machines today is American

The first functional sewing machine turns out to be French.

Barthelemy Thimonnier - First Functional Machine & a Riot

The first functional sewing machine was invented by the French tailor, Barthelemy Thimonnier, in 1830. Thimonnier's machine used only one thread and a hooked needle that made the same chain stitch used with embroidery. The inventor was almost killed by an enraged group of French tailors who burnt down his garment factory because they feared unemployment as a result of his new invention

http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/a/sewing_machine.htm

Most new drugs - that don't cure anything better than suffering

Not when they cause more illness than they don't alleviate.

Behrooz Boonabi

07-21-2007, 06:00 AM

He still invented it... example of US taking credit for others work.

Germans patented it 13 years before Bell Labs.

Germanium?

Vladimir80

07-21-2007, 06:20 AM

Germanium?

I don't follow... Russian named a perodic element that but I don't know what you mean.

Nubian Warrior

07-21-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zraver View Post
Light Bulb - UK invention Edisons worked, davy's didn't really
He still invented it... example of US taking credit for others work.

Actually Lewis Latimer was the one who perfected the light bulb because it could not stay lit for more than a few seconds. Thomas Edison had hired him away from his competitor Hiram Maxim. Unfortunately it was very hard for blacks to get patents in those days.

http://www.blackinventor.com/pages/lewislatimer.html

Zraver

07-21-2007, 03:26 PM

He still invented it... example of US taking credit for others work.

If it doesn't work it doesn't coun't.

Germans patented it 13 years before Bell Labs.

proof

Another invention US took work of others and made it their own.

No the French Photonapgraph recording pitch and frequncy onto glass covered in lamp soot so people could check for accuracy vissually. It did not play back audible music.

The French beat them by 6 years...

Proof please

[/quote]
He was a British citizen... :sorry3:[/quote]
Hiram Maxim was born in Sangersville, Maine in 1840.

and CCCP was in 53'... one year

Thats still only good enough for second place

It wasn't used to kill southerners... it was used to massacre American Indians.

It was invented during the ACW

To make more cotton requiring more slaves to process it.

No, cotton is a plant to make more of it you simply plant more of it. What the gin did was pick the seeds out greatly reduicng the number of manhours per bail. This made American cotton cheap and led to a cotton boom.

Which it hasn't distrubted to the rest of the world leaving others to suffer.

Its not America's job to pay for some one elses medicine. It has been distrubited but the Dark Contonet cannot get its act together and make use of its astounding natural resources. That is more a problem of the former Colonial masters and Soviet supported wars of national indipendance than anythign else.

The modern steam turbine was invented by an Englishman... you still lose. :roflmao3:

Yup, I was wrong

It was self propelled... oars

proof, the sources say it was towed so the oars were probalby on the long boat above it, that makes it a submersable. The Turtle was the first submarine.

Proved yourself wrong... good.

Honesty you should try it instead of your lies.

He still had the first patent and when built it worked. US based their designs off of it which is the whole point of US claiming inventions off others work.

He never built it, the first computer (not iea for a computer as Babbage is) is the American machine.

The first functional sewing machine turns out to be French.

Barthelemy Thimonnier - First Functional Machine & a Riot

The first functional sewing machine was invented by the French tailor, Barthelemy Thimonnier, in 1830. Thimonnier's machine used only one thread and a hooked needle that made the same chain stitch used with embroidery. The inventor was almost killed by an enraged group of French tailors who burnt down his garment factory because they feared unemployment as a result of his new invention

http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/a/sewing_machine.htm

It was all about nothing, his stitch style doesn't work. Early attmepts tried to duplicated the human hand stitch in some way or like the guy above crochet. They didn't work, a working (and thus first) sewing machine would have to wait on Singer and the lockstitch.

Not when they cause more illness than they don't alleviate.

Who says they do? American drug companies are proving very effective at combating HIV, TB and other illnesses. The range of drugs for cancer and othe rillnesses is also increasing.

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 09:55 PM

Light Bulb - UK invention Edisons worked, davy's didn't really

Transistor - German invention No Invented by Bell Labratories from 45-51

Phonograph - French invention Again NO the Phonautograph had no audible playback and could only record on the VISUAL medium ie lampblackened glass.

Airplane - French invention Uhmm NO Wilbur and Orville were Ameican

Machine Gun - UK invention No Hiram Maxim was American

Naval Nulear reactor
Nuclear reactor - same thing No they are not
Hydrogen Bomb - by 1 year... actually 3, US tested an H-bomb in 52 (ivy Mike)

Gattling Gun - to kill Indians No actually to beat Southerners. The modenr M-61 is a diorect decendant of an electric naval gatling pulled out of a warehouse and given modern wiring and a slower cyclic rate.

Cotton Gin - to make more slaves To make more cotton, it acutally reduced the need for labor, which idaverdantly cuased a boom in cottton cultivation.

Cure for Yellow Fever - there is no cure... oops vacciantion

Steam turbine - ancient Greek invention the anceitn greek model was more of toy and not a larg eindustrial engine and also worked on completely different principles.

Submarine - Dutch invention NO his was a submersable towed by boats it was not self propelled ie a submarine

Telegraph - French invention No the semaphore is not a telegraph. Actually I was wrong and it look to be a German/English/US shared idea as all three had indipendant invention and operation within 4 years of one another.

Computer - UK invention No babbage never got his to work. The first programmable multi functio computer was the American tabulating machine of 1890

Sewing Machine - UK invention NO none of thiers worked, the lock stitch method used by all machines today is American

Artifical Heart

Most new drugs - that don't cure anything better than suffering

You, yourself are including all the controversy around even the most important inventions that you claim to be American. If they were American, you wouldn't have doubted yourself and wouldn't have included all the controversy around your least controversial so called inventions. Other ones are even more controversial. However, I give you guys one credit, you have great skills at stealing other people's invention, and other nation's inventions, making it your own, and then sell it big time. Basically, you have little brain, but you are big at sell; I think you deserve that much credit.

As for steam engines, the Britishs were using steam engines to pump water out of their coal mines long before you; so don't go to that stupid Greek toy and conveniently avoid the most important ancestor of your steam engine.

As for any part of you nuclear industry, it is all based on German scientists who escaped from Germany.

One example of your utter incompetence is that you guys captured Van Braun and his team; actually almost all German scientists escaped to west to avoid being captured by Russians. Russians did capture Van Braun's assistant, but you had Van Braun and his team, and almost all German scientists. Yet, Russians were not behind you in nuclear terms at all and caught up with you so fast; credit to Russian scientists as always. But the more embarrassing part is that Russians got to space first. And the only reason that you won the moon race was the fact that there was a huge explosion during one of the tests done by Russians who killed most of their top scientists; otherwise, you would have lost even that race. It's embarrassing that you had access to all these German scientists who saw USA as their second home, and worked for you from the bottom of their heart, and yet you lost to Russians who had a devastated country and had captured few German scientists.

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 09:58 PM

I believe Iran can beat the US but immortalguards comments where totally racist. He sounds like a nazi with his we are geneticly superior to you B-S. I'm Iranian but this is not the reason for our greatnes, no-one is geneticly superior.

But Chaos, you know as little as he does. I laugh at your comment of Jews being superior to us.:roflmao3: They are not, they just use the holocaust to get sympaty from others and so get others to help them with their dirty work.

Oh, thanks, people who sit and try to guess how many people in Iran and Israel would fry if there was an atomic exchange, and I'm sure getting high on it as the sick bastards these people are, are not Nazi, but I am Nazi cause I spell the facts??

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 10:05 PM

I'm not sure "you're an idiot" quite covers this post. Just the complete ignorance of science and reality is astounding.

Of course it is astounding to you. Your little brain can't see more than a feet in front of you moron. That's why you people are such short sighted people. I think your whole nation requires us to make a huge pair of glasses; then maybe you as a nation can start behaving like humans and not big mouth loud apes.

Kiaar

07-21-2007, 10:05 PM

Oh, thanks, people who sit and try to guess how many people in Iran and Israel would fry if there was an atomic exchange, and I'm sure getting high on it as the sick bastards these people are, are not Nazi, but I am Nazi cause I spell the facts??

You're just a racist, ignorant, fool. If you actually believe anything you typed about being "superior," I truly pity your meaningless existance.

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 10:16 PM

Immortal guard your a complete and utter idiot, in fact your just like a redneck in the KKK. Shut up :)

Oh, being called idiot by a total feeb. That hurts. At least if someone with some brain calls me idiot, then it doesn't hurt as much. In any case, imbecile, I must have hit the target so well, to get blood of all you feebs boiling.

kudos to me.

But one thing, I don't like to disrespect you as much as I like to disrespect the other feebs. At least you don't appear to be a poor sadistic moron like kiaar and zraver who don't value human life. As a Persian I am honored to say that I value even the life of my enemies. After all Cyrus, the greatest Persian ever lived always tried to win wars by diplomacy and avoid bloodshed as much as possible.

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 10:20 PM

You're just a racist, ignorant, fool. If you actually believe anything you typed about being "superior," I truly pity your meaningless existance.

And I truly value what you think NOOOOOOOOOOOT.

Kiaar

07-21-2007, 10:21 PM

Oh, being called idiot by a total feeb. That hurts. At least if someone with some brain calls me idiot, then it doesn't hurt as much. In any case, imbecile, I must have hit the target so well, to get blood of all you feebs boiling.

kudos to me.

But one thing, I don't like to disrespect you as much as I like to disrespect the other feebs. At least you don't appear to be a poor sadistic moron like kiaar and zraver who don't value human life. As a Persian I am honored to say that I value even the life of my enemies. After all Cyrus, the greatest Persian ever lived always tried to win wars by diplomacy and avoid bloodshed as much as possible.

I value human life more than you do, since I actually believe all humans are equal. Try to find me once say that I support war and death. All you've done so far is show yourself to be an ignorant fool.

Perhaps you should go educate yourself a little bit on small things like "genetics" and see why your comments, if not completely racist, are completely ignorant, then come back and speak.

Kiaar

07-21-2007, 10:22 PM

And I truly value what you think NOOOOOOOOOOOT.

Post edited. You're not worth getting in trouble over.

Kiaar

07-21-2007, 10:26 PM

After all Cyrus, the greatest Persian ever lived always tried to win wars by diplomacy and avoid bloodshed as much as possible.

Hah, what a joke.

Cyrus the Great (Old Persian: ��[1], Kūruš,[2] modern Persian: کوروش بزرگ, Kurosh-e Bozorg) (c. 590 BC or 576 — August 530 BC), also known as Cyrus II of Persia and Cyrus the Elder, was the founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty. As leader of the Persian people in Anshan, he conquered the Medes and unified the two separate Iranian kingdoms; as the king of Persia, he reigned over the new empire from 559 BC until his death. The empire expanded under his rule, eventually conquering most of Southwest Asia and much of Central Asia, from Egypt and Hellespont in the west to the Indus River in the east, to create the largest state the world had yet seen.[3]

During his twenty-nine year reign, Cyrus fought against some of the greatest states of the early Classical period, including the Median Empire, the Lydian Empire, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Cyrus did not venture into Egypt, as he himself died in battle, fighting the Massagetae along the Syr Darya in August 530 BC.[4] He was succeeded by his son, Cambyses II, who managed to conquer Egypt during his short rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

A link for you in case you want to do some reading. Some peaceful guy huh? I'm not saying he wasn't a great leader, but the fact that you see him as peaceful is a joke.

I hate to burst your bubble of reality that doesn't quite exist, but telling someone "Let me conquer you and I won't kill you" isn't exactly big diplomacy. Though I guess if the US told Saddam to leave power and giver over his country or there would be war, that would have been ok, right?

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 11:34 PM

I tried to post link(s) but I need 30 posts before I can post link(s).

immortalguard

07-21-2007, 11:35 PM

Hah, what a joke.

A link for you in case you want to do some reading. Some peaceful guy huh? I'm not saying he wasn't a great leader, but the fact that you see him as peaceful is a joke.

I hate to burst your bubble of reality that doesn't quite exist, but telling someone "Let me conquer you and I won't kill you" isn't exactly big diplomacy. Though I guess if the US told Saddam to leave power and giver over his country or there would be war, that would have been ok, right?

Imbecile, feeb, goul, when you argue, you are supposed to discredit your opponent by posting something embarrassing, something that discredits him, not something that supports his point; or is your feeble stupid child like mind incapable of such logic?? First, I didn't see "Let me conquer you and I won't kill you" anywhere in that Wikipedia page that you have posted the link. Are you editing the page as you go for yourself you moron?? Second a few passage from the very link you imbecile have posted:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beyond his nation, Cyrus left a lasting legacy on religion, politics, and military strategy, as well as on Middle Eastern and Western civilization."

"Cyrus was distinguished equally as a statesman and as a soldier. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his newly conquered subjects into enthusiastic supporters.[27] Due in part to the political infrastructure he created, the Achaemenid empire endured long after his demise.

The rise of Persia under Cyrus's rule had a profound impact on the course of world history. Persian philosophy, literature, and religion all played dominant roles in world events for the next millenia. Despite its conquest in the 7th century CE by the Islamic Caliphate, Persia continued to exercise enormous influence in the Middle East, and was particularly instrumental in the growth and expansion of Islam."

"The only known example of his religious policy is his treatment of the Jews in Babylon. The Bible records that a remnant of the Jewish population returned to the Promised Land from Babylon, following an edict from Cyrus to rebuild the temple. This edict is fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra. As a result of Cyrus' policies, the Jews honored him as a dignified and righteous king. He is the only Gentile to be designated as a messiah, a divinely-appointed king, in the Tanakh (Isaiah 45:1-6). However, at the time, there was also Jewish criticism of him after he was lied to by the Cuthites, who wanted to halt the building of the Second Temple. They accused the Jews of conspiring to rebel, so Cyrus in turn stopped the construction of the temple, which would not be completed until 516 BC, during the reign of Darius the Great.[28]

Some contemporary Muslim scholars have suggested that the Qur'anic figure of Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great. This theory was proposed by Sunni scholar Abul Kalam Azad. Then endorsed by Shi'a scholars Allameh Tabatabaei, in his Tafsir al-Mizan and Makarem Shirazi and Sunni scholar Abul Ala Maududi.[29] Conversely, it has been challenged by some, including Iranologist and archaeologist Alireza Shapour Shahbazi.[30]"

"Cyrus' legacy has been felt even as far away as Iceland[33] and colonial America. Many of the forefathers of the United States of America sought inspiration from Cyrus the Great through works such as Cyropaedia. Thomas Jefferson, for example, had two personal copies of the book, "which was a mandatory read for statesmen alongside Machiavelli's The Prince."[34]

{{|Cyrus the Great is genuinely one of history's towering figures. America's own founders such as Thomas Jefferson were influenced by Cyrus the Great in the field of Human Rights. Ted Koppel, ABC's Nightline[35]}}"

"[edit] Cyrus Cylinder
The Cyrus Cylinder artifact was inscribed in Babylonian cuneiform at Cyrus' command after his conquest of Babylon.
The Cyrus Cylinder artifact was inscribed in Babylonian cuneiform at Cyrus' command after his conquest of Babylon.

Main article: Cyrus Cylinder

The cylinder has been considered as the world's first known charter of human rights, as there are passages in the text have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity. It promotes a form of religious tolerance and freedom,[36] and the abolishment of slavery.[37][38] He allowed his subjects to continue worshipping their gods, despite his own religious beliefs.[39] In 1971, the United Nations published a translation of the document in all the official U.N. languages. A replica of the Cyrus Cylinder has reportedly been on display at United Nations headquarters in New York City as a tribute to Cyrus' display of respect and tolerance.[40]

Nevertheless, some scholars have rejected this view, arguing that the concept of human rights is alien to the historical context[41]."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn, it is no fun to have a feeb as the opponent in an argument; you support my points you goul. Can one of you redneck morons challenge me please rather than support me?

But then again, I'm done. I have better things to do than argue with total morons.

Zraver

07-22-2007, 01:00 AM

ImortalGuard,

Your a racist, but that is simply stating the obvious. I am guessing your about 15 and day dream about being a master bomb maker for some jihadi cause, your not brave enough to wear a vest yourself. Whats saddest is that you might really be Persian. In which case your the Iranian version of sheet wearing trailer park living hill billy.

If you had half an ounce of gray stuff between your left and right ears you'd know that a pure Aryan Persian hasn't drawn a breath in hundreds of years if not thousands. As the center for international trade for 3000 years and invaded and conquered mutlipe times by racially different groups the modern Persian is as Heinz 57 as the average American.

If you ran your DNA and isolated all the different racial contributions you would find traces of Turkic, Aryan, Semite, Hellene, Latin, Arab, true Egyptian, Nubian, Cannanite, and probably quite a few others.

Kermanshah1

07-22-2007, 04:41 AM

Zraver

07-22-2007, 05:13 AM

Immmortal guard. There is no doubt Iran is different than for instance the Arab nations, we have had many empires, we have had a longer time of civilisations and ofocurse our soldiers are braver but we are not geneticly superior. It's got to do with the culture and with how the people are. There are stupid Iranians and there are clever Americans (eventhough if you look at their president you wouldn't think so).

Now ofcourse these guys like Zraver think America is so great and so much better than Iran. He supports them in their wars and hopes they win, he's probably pro-Israeli aswell. Guys like thier stupiod President. All of them will be up for a big shock when the war starts but not because we are geneticly superior.

BTW. Koeresh the Great wasn't peacefull but the was the founder of the biggest empire of ancient times.

Of course I support America, I'm American and I daresay America is a better place to live than Iran. More wealth, lower unemployment, higher wages, non-theocratic controlled democracy, better health care, more technology by every measurable standard America is better specially for Americans. I like Iran but its not home.

At least I am honest enough to admit it.

Now personally I hope we don't see a US/Iranian war, but I think thats what A-jad wants. If we do have a war, I really feel sorry for Iran. No matter who claims victory in the end Iran will be ruined not just economically but physically from US bombs. It's kinda funny all the kids on here screaming that Iran will win, what will they win? What will the future generations of Iranians have to pay just to rebuild to where Iran is today? Is Iran really willing to sacrafice itself to A-jads ego or some distorted religious drivel?

Even if Iran achieves all of its military goal and sinks a carrier and kills thousands of US troops in Iraq and ****s off the oil. Nothing is going to save Iran's power and water grids, its bridges, power stations, telephone exchanges- Iran will resemble Iraq. Ypu warmongers who want war really need to stop and look down the road and envision Iran after the US has spent a couple of months doing high explosive deconstruction.

Vladimir80

07-22-2007, 05:17 AM

Ypu warmongers who want war really need to stop and look down the road and envision Iran after the US has spent a couple of months doing high explosive deconstruction.

You American warmongers need to look down the road... You spending a trillion dollars in Iraq to rebuild what you broke. :roflmao3::roflmao3::roflmao3:

Kermanshah1

07-22-2007, 04:20 PM

Of course I support America, I'm American and I daresay America is a better place to live than Iran. More wealth, lower unemployment, higher wages, non-theocratic controlled democracy, better health care, more technology by every measurable standard America is better specially for Americans. I like Iran but its not home.

At least I am honest enough to admit it.

Now personally I hope we don't see a US/Iranian war, but I think thats what A-jad wants. If we do have a war, I really feel sorry for Iran. No matter who claims victory in the end Iran will be ruined not just economically but physically from US bombs. It's kinda funny all the kids on here screaming that Iran will win, what will they win? What will the future generations of Iranians have to pay just to rebuild to where Iran is today? Is Iran really willing to sacrafice itself to A-jads ego or some distorted religious drivel?

Even if Iran achieves all of its military goal and sinks a carrier and kills thousands of US troops in Iraq and ****s off the oil. Nothing is going to save Iran's power and water grids, its bridges, power stations, telephone exchanges- Iran will resemble Iraq. Ypu warmongers who want war really need to stop and look down the road and envision Iran after the US has spent a couple of months doing high explosive deconstruction.

You never will get it do you. You Americans think too highly of Ahmadinejad. You really think it is Ahmadinejad that has made Iran anti-Israeli, anti-American and anti-western, many of you think it is him that is building up Irans army and that he started the nuclear program. I think it's kind of funny, I read things written by Americans about Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Isral it's funny how they say: He has made it no secret he wants to destroy Isral, He can attack Israel withouth air, He wants to build nukes to hit Israel. He is nothing. He's only the president, a lot of people even think he is the dictator of Iran:roflmao3:
Irans nuclear program has not much to do with Ahmadinejad, it was started in the 50s, he didn't start it, he didn't restart it he only happens to be Irans president right now. He wants war pfff:wub2: He hasn't got the power to do anything, he is just used by the Americans to say Iran is bad because he said we will whipe Israel of the map. They all think oh he wants to destroy Israel, what bad, they all feel sorry for those poor murderers wich stole and now occupy Palestinian land. Wich muslim in the world wouldn't want to destroy Israel? Nasser said he would drive the Jewish population of Palestine into the sea. They say he is much worst than Saddam Hussein, he sais he wants Isral destroyed and Saddam actually tried to do it. So many have said they want to destroy Israel, it was Khomeini that started the anti-Isralin policy in Iran but they think it is Ahmadinejad. He has no power! He is just a puppet of the Ayatollahs.

Iran hasn't attacked an other nation since Nadihr Shah died in the 1700s. The US has fought in/agians 50 different countries since that time. What a coincidence, they are so peacefull and all those 50 nations and their leaders where so agressive and militaristic. The biggest coincidence is all those agressive dictators (although some of them where chosen democraticly being an emeny of the US makes you a dictator) wanted a war with the US and almost all of them where attacked. funny isn't it the US never wants any wars but every few years end up attacking some far country that has nothing to do with them. It's the same case now isn't it, the US doesn't want any problems they only end up attacking Iran while Iran hasn't done anything.

Zraver

07-22-2007, 11:26 PM

Stealth3

07-23-2007, 12:40 AM

What Muslim in the world wouldn't want Israle destroyed? Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Syria have all at one time or anothe rhad diplomatic relations with, or offered/had offical peace with Israel.

Germany, Japan, Holland, France x2, Belgium x2, China, Russia, Ukraine, Beloruss, Georgia, Kuwait, Indoneisa, Maylasia, Austrailia, Paupa New Guinea, Oceania, South Korea, North Korea, South Vietnam, Luxemburg, Norway, Litchenstien, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Austria, Italy, Greece, India, Denmark, Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Iraq, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, Phillipines, United Kingdom and I may be forgetting some.

Do you know what they (49) have in common? That the US can be attributed directly with thier current freedom from either an acknolwedged dictator or tyrannical regime, or a forgien invader within the last 100 years. So ya America is so evil.

If I did a list of nations that recived aid after a natural disaster or a "Marshall" plan the list would be even bigger

What on earth are you talking about?
You are using big words such as "directly" yet you failed to realize that the US had nothing to do with the freedom of those 49 countries in any way.

Also about humanitarian don't use that in this debate, the US ain't the only one offering humanitarian aid.

I'm assuming you are using WW2 for your "wrong" analogy, since supposedly, we were all saved by the US during WW2. That myth works in American, but anywhere else is just a myth. The Soviet Union would have defeated the Nazi's even if the US didn't join the war. This is a fact because by 1944 (The time the US joined the real war effort in Europe), Germany was on full retreat on the Eastern front, and had no way in hell of stopping the Red Army.

Now lets leave the dead ghosts in the closet and talk modern times. Take Romania for example. Its dictator was overthrown in 1989 BY the people, and the US (thank God), had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. So please revise your sources because its offensive to anyone non-American or educated American.

I have to admit, this is one of the few forums where such topics can be discussed without some troll hijacking the thread.

My 2 cents on the issue:

I'm not worried about the US bombing Iran, I'm worrying about the Israel bombing Iran and dragging the US down with it. After Israel bombs Iran, they will do what they do best, and play victims, hoping the Americans will finish the war they started. Thats a very likely scenario.

If war does start, the US will lose Iraq, that, everybody can predict. Iran will do a great mistake if they don't flood Iraq with at least 300,000 men. They will be supported by the both Sunni and Shiite insurgency.
For all of those that think otherwise, realize that Sunni and Shiites aren't arch enemies. Look at Syria's relationship with Iran for example. The Sunnies hate US occupation so much that they will take Iran's side. They know that after the war, Iran will leave, living minor influences. They US on the other hand will built bases and never leave. Their influence will be major. Proof? Look at the huge palace embassy building they are building.
The US will not want to fight a ground war, but Iran will force it to if they go in Iraq. An attack on Iran will involve Iraqi air bases, and thats a reason why Iran should invade and make it hard for the Americans.

The US will either be force to accept a war that will last decades or just cut and run like in Vietnam. Not to mention the economical impact such a war will have. Europe will stay neutral on this, they have nothing to gain from it.

Damn, that was a long post.
Greetings from worldwar2.ro forum

Persianbob

07-23-2007, 05:31 AM

nice history lesson but sheep never reads, I am in state of mind that u.s.
knows there is no victory in Iran case and no iranian government is going to be buttler.
well , Then I am looking at Donkey stuck in the mud and can not get out of mud
my believe is this donkey need swift kick to get out,
Precise moment of history perfect time , Patton saids
Death of civilization.

Persianbob

07-23-2007, 05:59 AM

Look at it this way , ahmadinejad
is only president that had at least a real job , most leaders of the world
just sucked the nations resource and were wellfare recepiants.

Nubian Warrior

07-23-2007, 08:24 AM

Kermanshah1

07-23-2007, 09:52 AM

Let's have a little look at the stupidity of your statements:

What Muslim in the world wouldn't want Israle destroyed? Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Syria have all at one time or anothe rhad diplomatic relations with, or offered/had offical peace with Israel.

People think different thatn their sh*t gouvnerments.

Germany, Japan, Holland, France x2, Belgium x2, China, Russia, Ukraine, Beloruss, Georgia, Kuwait, Indoneisa, Maylasia, Austrailia, Paupa New Guinea, Oceania, South Korea, North Korea, South Vietnam, Luxemburg, Norway, Litchenstien, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Austria, Italy, Greece, India, Denmark, Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Iraq, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, Phillipines, United Kingdom and I may be forgetting some.

Do you know what they (49) have in common? That the US can be attributed directly with thier current freedom from either an acknolwedged dictator or tyrannical regime, or a forgien invader within the last 100 years. So ya America is so evil.

If I did a list of nations that recived aid after a natural disaster or a "Marshall" plan the list would be even bigger

Wait aminute. Here are a few nations I don't agree with being on your list.
China - The communists are still in power, Japan never invaded China, the only managed to take parts of it.
North Korea - Soviets freed them from Japan, You didn't "free" them from the communists either as thiy're still in power
Afghanistan - You brought the tyranical regime in power in the first place.
Cuba - Communists are still in power,
Syria - Bahathists are in power and you didn't put them there
Iraq - If you with freeing them mean invading and f*cking up thier country.
Libya - Khadaffi is still in power, all you did was make peace with him.
United Kingdom - When did all that happen?
South Vietnam - You supported their dictator and after he was gone you didn't free them you lost the war and thier country doesn't exist anymore. Or do you mean freeing them from the Japanese?
Egypt - The British defeated Rommel
India - You didn't the people did

Couple of more objections:
Russia, Ukraine, Beloruss, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia

The Soviet Union let Eastern Europe go, you didn't "free" them. Also You didn't destroy the Soviet Union either, Jeltsin and Gorbatsjov did and if you do claim credit for it why didn't you than add the rest of eastern europe and the other Former soviet Republics?

The other antions, OK. If you mean with freed from a tyranical regime/dictator like whenHitler invaded Europe and he got kicked out OK but if you mean some of those countries had a dictator or tyrannical dictator wich you kicked out I suggest you to read some history.

Kiaar

07-23-2007, 10:56 AM

What on earth are you talking about?
You are using big words such as "directly" yet you failed to realize that the US had nothing to do with the freedom of those 49 countries in any way.

Also about humanitarian don't use that in this debate, the US ain't the only one offering humanitarian aid.

I'm assuming you are using WW2 for your "wrong" analogy, since supposedly, we were all saved by the US during WW2. That myth works in American, but anywhere else is just a myth. The Soviet Union would have defeated the Nazi's even if the US didn't join the war. This is a fact because by 1944 (The time the US joined the real war effort in Europe), Germany was on full retreat on the Eastern front, and had no way in hell of stopping the Red Army.

I'm going to leave the bottom of the post out, since it's off topic to this thread and there are five billion others with that topic.

As for the US in WWII:

- The US may not have become a major force in the European theatre until after the D-Day landings in Normandy, but without them the British and Russians would have had a crap load less guns, ammo, and food (for the Russians) to use.

Here's the source for the following quotes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

American aid to the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 18 million tons of materiel at an overall cost of $10 billion ($120 billion modern) and 49 percent of it went through Vladivostok, the major Pacific port of Far Eastern Russia, Tuyll reported.

In 1942-1944 the Soviet Union chartered about 120 American ships and 50 U.S. tankers, and to protect these vessels from attack by Japan in the wake of its December 1941 strafing of Pearl Harbor, American crews sailed under the Soviet hammer and sickle flag. When lend-lease shipments arrived at Vladivostok they were stored both in port terminals and in warehouses on Portovaya and Verkhne-Portovaya streets, then they were conveyed by train along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to points west. During the war the port of Vladivostok handled four times more cargo than Murmansk and Far Eastern railroad traffic was four times greater than the rest of nation.

90 percent of lend-lease cargo was not military, however it’s impossible to talk about this U.S. government directive without mentioning the huge number of trucks, planes and tanks which were supplied by America to the Soviet Union because most of the country’s vehicles were destroyed in the first months of war, Tuyll noted.

According to him, aviation was also important part of land lease and the Soviet Union received 21,000 planes for this program. P-39, or air cobra, and later its improved version called king cobra were passed to the Red Army.

Speaking of lend lease and aid provided in accord with this program, Tuyll noted that the Soviet Union would have survived without it but the victory would not have been so complete.

Now, the last one especially is important. If the US had not entered, Russia would have still kicked the Germans out of Russia. But their casualties would certainly have been a lot heavier, it would have been much more difficult to advance through East Europe, and who do you think would have had to fight the fresh and un-challenged Japanese Empire if the US was not in the war?

If we look at the UK, it's also common knowledge they got a lot of military aid from the US. Their war effort wouldhave been greatly effected as well. Would they have lost? Probably not, but the war may have lasted longer and caused even more death and destruction.

At the end of the war, neither Russia nor the UK was capable of taking on the Japanese, who still would have been in full force without the US. Australia would probably be Japanese, as well as alot of the smaller islands. They didn't have the best relationship with the Russians, and you can bet there would have been problems there too.

Considering the US was also the only country besides Germany fighting a two front war, though unike Germany, on two sides of the planet, they certainly had a pretty large part in the victory of the war, especially over the Japanese who, aside from some help from Brit. Naval elements and local rebels, fought the entire war with Japan at the same time they were fighting in Europe.

Even more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Finances

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a discount, for £1,075 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) No lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet UASS. [1]

This program is seen as a decisive step away from American isolationism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. Thomas E. Dewey said that the bill "would abolish the congress for all practical purposes" and incidentally eliminate free government in the United States. Liberal Senator Hiram Johnson called it "monstrous." The CIO opposed the measure because it gave the president power to ban strikes and otherwise ignore labor legislation in the new and converted factories that would produce the weaponry. The Chicago Tribune even called lend-lease "the Dictator Bill." Historian Charles A. Beard called lend-lease "a bill for waging undeclared war." [2] In sharp contrast to the American loans to the Allies in World War I, there were no provisions for postwar repayments. However, some historians are of the opinion that it was an attempt to bolster Britain and the other allies as a buffer to prevent the necessity of America becoming involved against Nazi Germany.

You'll note some of the numbers are not exactly the same, but are close enough. Wikipedia is probaby more reliable than the other though.

Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States were not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping US forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships.

Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance.

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[4] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.

Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941.

I think that about covers it. The US didn't win the war on it's own, but it certainly had a very large part in the victory, both militarily and economically.