How long will be it till we see an Iranian aircraft carrier?

[Shapur 2]

How long do you think? Or is it already in the works?

[Ahmadinejad]

well i dont know.. i mean lets face it, there is no need for iran to have an aircraft carrier because iran is constantly being threatened and we need more defensive weapons as opposed to an offensive one. Also, we're gonna need nuclear energy to be able to power that thing and thats what we dont have.. but we're working on it ^^ not only that, its going to need its own escourt ships which will cost us a lot as well. Lastly, the persian gulf doesnt look like a very appealing body of water for an aircraft carrier.

[Soroush]

Iran's strategic location is just no good for an aircraft carrier. Look at the straight of hormuz and you'll see my friend.

[Shapur 2]

it looks like the USA is making good use of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf....

[masterfx]

till u guys start poping out modern frigates and destroyers.....

[masterfx]

btw i think is around 2050..... still a long way to go.......

[Tbagger]

Why does Iran even need a carrier?

[Night]

There are two main stages of a powerfull military.

1. Good defense. If you cant defend your country, your military is almost worthless. Iran's missiles offer good protection from less developed nations in the area which don't have anti missile technology.

2. Good offense. If your enemy knows you can attack him and destroy him, he wont even think about trying to attack you. Iran fails in this category.

[Tbagger]

The best defense is a good offense. ;)

[Night]

^^^

True true, Iran's missiles prove this.

[attitude]

Never
Iran has no need for an aircraft carrier

[4X-IL]

Let me ask this -

What aircraft Iran have that can serve on Aircraft carrier besides 40 year old F-14?

[Night]

Can't the F-5 be used on aircraft carriers? I don't know much about the F-5 oter then what it looks like.

[PersianPrince]

No need for an aircraft carriers.We should rely on submarines and small corvettes.Will work wonderful in the Persian gulf.

[Tbagger]

Let me ask this -

What aircraft Iran have that can serve on Aircraft carrier besides 40 year old F-14?
The F-4 Phantom.

[Alex]

There are two main stages of a powerfull military.

1. Good defense. If you cant defend your country, your military is almost worthless. Iran's missiles offer good protection from less developed nations in the area which don't have anti missile technology.

2. Good offense. If your enemy knows you can attack him and destroy him, he wont even think about trying to attack you. Iran fails in this category.

in my opinon this is stuped cuz of course iran fails in the second category do you think iran can attack us mainland? iran can't destroy america.

[Alex]

iran doens't fail the 2nd category if it's about to attack a country in ME.thats why israel wont attack. you are comparing iran with the us. thats why it fails in the second category

[masterfx]

The best defense is a good offense. ;)
strongly agree! :D

[attitude]

Submarines and fast attack craft and airwarfare destroyers are needed and maybe a Helicopter carrier

[masterfx]

Submarines and fast attack craft and airwarfare destroyers are needed and maybe a Helicopter carrier

not at the moment..... maybe 30 years after USN are gone.....

[stunnerzinc]

not at the moment..... maybe 30 years after USN are gone.....
Gone where?

[masterfx]

Gone where?
gone into their holes in North America

[Tbagger]

not at the moment..... maybe 30 years after USN are gone.....
The USN will never be gone. They've been around for 250 or so years already. :cool:

[masterfx]

then china + russia + iran navies will 'plz' USN to emigrant out of golf region!

[Capricorn Edge]

then china + russia + iran navies will 'plz' USN to emigrant out of golf region!

LOL!!!!!:roflmao3: MasterFX, you mean GOLF or GULF???

[masterfx]

LOL!!!!!:roflmao3: MasterFX, you mean GOLF or GULF???

lol.... i was gona write gulf but the next thing i no i wrote... (i dont no coz i was thinking about the golf game for tomorrow.. lol)

[persian_player]

Does this qualify?

http://img206.echo.cx/img206/7366/fej455hz.jpg

[PJPM]

aircraft carriers are expensive some cost up to 9billion dollor, and it cost alot for the maintanance also. another thing is it needs alot of ship around it for protection.

[Dylan]

Iran is trying to become a Mideast superpower so they might get one.

[PJPM]

once iran is fully capable of defending it self than it has to start with it's offensive power. also a aircraft carrier would require a uraniam for it's energy since if u use oil for it, u have to stop for every 2 hours or so lol just to refuel.

[AK54]

then china + russia + iran navies will 'plz' USN to emigrant out of golf region!
bwahaha


the entire world could not take the USN, dont kid yourself.

[AK-101]

bwahaha


the entire world could not take the USN, dont kid yourself.

thankyou for answering for me.

[Tbagger]

bwahaha


the entire world could not take the USN, dont kid yourself.
Very true.

The tonnage of the USN is greater than the tonnage of the next 17 largest navies combined. That's one hell of a navy. :cool:

[Night]

Its not just the size, but the sphistication of U.S. naval navionics (lmao I totally made up the word Navionics) :)

[attitude]

Navionics

Awesome
A term coined first on Irandefence
Night you should trade mark it :P

[masterfx]

USN just too much for this whole world....... not even russian can help it

[ThePuss]

Fine build an aircraft carrier but has anyone worked out what you are going to fly off it with?
You tend to need compatable aircraft but hey what the hell.
Don't tell me reverse engineering, I am sure there a still some Swordfish torpedeo bombers flying somewhere.

[javid khan]

USN is far to advanced, the US has the best scence gene pool, the minute some scientist comes up with something US buys the technology, you cant beat US this is truly its days

[warmonger]

iran already builds oil tankers, surley she can build a small class carrier, possibly saeqeh can be modified to fly of it. just a thought!

[Native]

1. There is no reason for Iran to have a CVN.
2. The construction and maintence costs are ridiculous.
3. Which aircraft would Iran use? What would the CVN's role be?
4. A CVN is easy to sink, it would be alot of money at the bottom of the sea.

[PJPM]

iran doesn't need them yet, doesnt mean they won't ever need them in future once iran could defend agianst US it will need to think about offencive tactics which probably be ships, yes this won't happend meybe for another 50 years or so cause us won't be a superpower by than.

[Native]

I would argue that Iran would more then likely never need aircraft carriers. They are for power projection.

Do you foresee Iran becoming a Super Power of the Indian Ocean as Indian see's itself?

I could think of more efficient ways to spend military money to protect Iran then wasting it on an aircraft carrier.

With the line of thinking about being an offensive power, ignoring the question why? I don't think you understand how indepth a Battlegroup is. Because you don't just build an aircraft carrier, you build a battlegroup.

Would you just build one battlegroup? What happens while that carrier is in the yards, or is sunk?

To be honest I think Iran would be better off with a BB Battlegroup.

[Sanchezz]

Large battle machines are slowly dissapearing.In 50-100 years there will be no tanks,large vessels etc. Because Rockets are so advanced that they will probaly in near future be able to sink any ship destroy any tank or any larger military vehicle.Future of warfare is in small and fast manouvarable vehicles that cary missiles and laser wapons and are equipped with sophisticated computers etc...

[Native]

In theory that sounds good, but the problem is you cannot capture ground without foot soldiers and those foot soldiers must be supported, by vehicles, aircraft, artillary, etc..

[arteshi]

Iran could in theory purchase or license build a small carrier like the Italian G. Garibaldi or the Spaniard Principe de Asturias. It would require much less $ and they could have at least 2 of them. Iranian can always buy Russian harrier types or get second hand harriers (like thailand did from spain), or attack helicopters. Maybe install powerful ssm and have heliborne aew to add to effectiveness of fleet. Russians could provide Iranians assistance since they had their own small carriers too. they also had experience with vstol in the form of the yak 38 and 40 and later on with yak141. When political climate calms down, Iran can work out a deal maybe with India or china for small scale carriers.:)

[Night]

Could is the key word...

And I doubt Iran could...

[Sanchezz]

In theory that sounds good, but the problem is you cannot capture ground without foot soldiers and those foot soldiers must be supported, by vehicles, aircraft, artillary, etc..


I agree completly :) offcourse u need infranry.And in the future infranry will become more important than today.They will be equipped with advanced kevlar and computers also with very deadly weapons.And each soldier will probably have com-link to commander.They will be supported by small one-man crafts that are similar to helicopters.Also there will be lots of vehicles that go on remote control.But im certain there will be no large tanks like today and huge ships etc.

[Native]

Iran could in theory purchase or license build a small carrier like the Italian G. Garibaldi or the Spaniard Principe de Asturias. It would require much less $ and they could have at least 2 of them. Iranian can always buy Russian harrier types or get second hand harriers (like thailand did from spain), or attack helicopters. Maybe install powerful ssm and have heliborne aew to add to effectiveness of fleet. Russians could provide Iranians assistance since they had their own small carriers too. they also had experience with vstol in the form of the yak 38 and 40 and later on with yak141. When political climate calms down, Iran can work out a deal maybe with India or china for small scale carriers.:)


It's a nice proposal, but I still don't understand why Iran would want that? VSTOL aircraft are not good AAW aircraft, the range is limited. You would spend alot of money on equipment that isn't really giving you alot of bang for your buck.
What you are describing is really a utility CV, or LHA that could support Amphibious landings. Is that the point of Iran having a CV/LHA?
If you want true power projection, you need something that has striking power, which isn't at VSTOL acft.
Getting a CV just to have one is a waste of money. I still would like someone explain why Iran needs one? What is the mission objective of having a CV?

[Xerxes]

Iran is no need of carrier at this stage at all. However, if the nation's influence spread dramatically within the next 100 years they would probably need it. The nations that do need it are India and China.

[Native]

I think India is doing a pretty good job at it's effort to move into the Regional Super Power arena.

China is China. The only possible major Chinese Naval conflict that comes to mind is over Taiwan. Besides that, I think China has what it needs Navy wide. Their Air Force has the legs it needs to cover it's regional self defense and power projection.

*The other possible Naval conflict that comes to mind is over the Spratly Islands.

[Native]

Iran is no need of carrier at this stage at all. However, if the nation's influence spread dramatically within the next 100 years they would probably need it.

What role would Iran's carrier fill?
Power projection? Self Defense? Amphibious, ASW, Strike?

What would India's role be?
Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea? Indian Ocean?

[Xerxes]

What role would Iran's carrier fill?
Power projection? Self Defense? Amphibious, ASW, Strike?

What would India's role be?
Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea? Indian Ocean?

ofcourse power projection ,, like the dreadnaughts of old .. ofcourse that would be for a very hypothetical scenario where Iran's influence goes outside its traditional sphere of influence and ofcourse at the expense or with coordination with India and the United States. That is why i said a many many decades later.

Then again carriers repalced the obsolete battleships, and in this age strong economical ties are more influential than a fleet of carriers.

final point: Iran doesnt need them anytime soon nor it will be able to maintain them, however i have no doubt had the Shah was still in power you would probably see them (carriers) by now. He always like to buy things that no one else would buy ($$$), like his purchase of Concorde

India's role will be ofcourse the Indian ocean and maybe the Arabian Sea at the expense of Pakistan and Iran. But right now, I see an iron curtain coming down between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with or without American support.

[Native]

Thanks X,

I just find it funny and cute :) all the people that talk about Iran getting CV's. It's like a kid wanting a big exspensive car.
The kid doesn't need the car, the kid can't afforde the upkeep on the car, there is no point but status.

The upkeep for a CV is tremendous. You need to buy the right equipment for the job/mission at hand.

CV's require, aircraft, support ships, escort ships, ship yards, etc..

A ship armed with cruise missles is cheaper and easier to maintain then a CV. How many "strike" ships could you build and maintain for the price of that CV? More ships, more flexibility.

Am I running on? sorry. :(

[Xerxes]

Thanks X,

I just find it funny and cute :) all the people that talk about Iran getting CV's. It's like a kid wanting a big exspensive car.
The kid doesn't need the car, the kid can't afforde the upkeep on the car, there is no point but status.

The upkeep for a CV is tremendous. You need to buy the right equipment for the job/mission at hand.

CV's require, aircraft, support ships, escort ships, ship yards, etc..

A ship armed with cruise missles is cheaper and easier to maintain then a CV. How many "strike" ships could you build and maintain for the price of that CV? More ships, more flexibility.

Am I running on? sorry. :(

you are absolutly right, and I might also add that the Soviet Union came to the same conclusion but for different reasons.

[Native]

If you're talking about what I think you are, yes the Soviets went for the quantity over quality method.

and Reagan bankrupted them.

[Xerxes]

If you're talking about what I think you are, yes the Soviets went for the quantity over quality method.

and Reagan bankrupted them.

... well my understanding was that the Soviet Union understood that it cannot waste valubale resources to keep up with US tech in the field of carriers (US specialty), specifically because of its geography. Only a few were built and they focus on cruisers and anti-ship warfare.

A funny story comes to mind, i dont know if you know, but during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 the entire Russian Baltic Fleet went around the world from the Baltic Sea toward the Sea of Japan only to be destroyed by the Togo's T-crossing. If the Russian were the world only super power, then I could see them using carrier fleets with their bases in the Baltic, Black Sea and Far East, like a giant Red spider. Alexander went as far as Paris, Stalin went as far as Berlin, lets see how far Putin the KGBmaster will streched forward.

[Native]

... well my understanding was that the Soviet Union understood that it cannot waste valubale resources to keep up with US tech in the field of carriers (US specialty), specifically because of its geography. Only a few were built and they focus on cruisers and anti-ship warfare.

I'm sure that was the perspective of some. The Soviet Union never matched the U.S. in carrier technology. At the end, they did enter into catapult technology.
How many countries can do underway replenishment? :)



A funny story comes to mind, i dont know if you know, but during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 the entire Russian Baltic Fleet went around the world from the Baltic Sea toward the Sea of Japan only to be destroyed by the Togo's T-crossing. If the Russian were the world only super power, then I could see them using carrier fleets with their bases in the Baltic, Black Sea and Far East, like a giant Red spider. Alexander went as far as Paris, Stalin went as far as Berlin, lets see how far Putin the KGBmaster will streched forward.

History is awesome, so easy to look back and see errors. Back seat driving ftw!

[Native]

LOL,
thinking of underway replenishment and fiasco's. How about the British leaving port so quickly that they had to stop and reload their equipment on the way to the Falklands?

[Janbaz]

once iran is fully capable of defending it self than it has to start with it's offensive power. also a aircraft carrier would require a uraniam for it's energy since if u use oil for it, u have to stop for every 2 hours or so lol just to refuel.

That would of been true a few years ago. But now, things have changed. You can have unlimited supply of power to your ship engine without using Nuclear power.

[4X-IL]

But what would it help?

From my point of view, Iranian aircraft carrier will just be a great " X " for its enemies to target..

Iran doesn't have the technology to stop its enemies missiles and weapons to keep its carrier unharmed.

Its just another great target for enemies... that will kill lots and lots of soldiers, which means this target is 100% legitamit since it does not have civilians onboard, and will be easily destroyed.

I consider US carriers in the Gulf unsafe, even with all the escort and systems the carrier and its fleet have.

I don't think anything less than the USS Whitney ( that is not even guarding a carrier ) is enough for a carrier, which is just too big target...

And I just don't believe in case of a war with Iran, the US fleet in the Gulf will manage to block all of Iran's missiles, after all, Iran is the defender which have all the resources from its country, not the US.

[Native]

But what would it help?

From my point of view, Iranian aircraft carrier will just be a great " X " for its enemies to target..

Iran doesn't have the technology to stop its enemies missiles and weapons to keep its carrier unharmed.

Its just another great target for enemies... that will kill lots and lots of soldiers, which means this target is 100% legitamit since it does not have civilians onboard, and will be easily destroyed.

I consider US carriers in the Gulf unsafe, even with all the escort and systems the carrier and its fleet have.

I don't think anything less than the USS Whitney ( that is not even guarding a carrier ) is enough for a carrier, which is just too big target...

And I just don't believe in case of a war with Iran, the US fleet in the Gulf will manage to block all of Iran's missiles, after all, Iran is the defender which have all the resources from its country, not the US.

All very good points!

I remember before the U.S. sent carriers into the Gulf.

[PruneJuice]

I don't know. It takes alot of Tech and a hell of alot of manufacturing capabilities.

I say in about 90 years ????

[kaiser_tr]

iran doesnt need a carrier

[PruneJuice]

Not right now they don't but if they want to increase their influence and power they will in the future

[Sajjad]

I don't know. It takes alot of Tech and a hell of alot of manufacturing capabilities.

I say in about 90 years ????

90 year?? Where you get this information from sir? :laugh4:

[Pylyp Orlyk]

I don't know. It takes alot of Tech and a hell of alot of manufacturing capabilities.

I say in about 90 years ????

All Iran must do is place order with Ukriane... we built Soviet aircraft carriers.

[Night]

lmao^^

As if Iran could afford it, ukraine could build it, and Ukraine coule sell it to Iran.

[Sajjad]

lmao^^

As if Iran could afford it, ukraine could build it, and Ukraine coule sell it to Iran.

Why this seem hard to you sir?

[Pylyp Orlyk]

lmao^^

As if Iran could afford it,



That's the question... does Iran have good enough economy to afford it?

[kaiser_tr]

before aircraft carrier,iran needs many naval equipment...no offense but your navy does not seem well.

you must produce(or procure) frigates,destroyers,corvettes,submarines,patrolboats naval helicopters,naval planes and then think of buying a carrier


furthermore iran needs a good(not this good,really good) economy to support its fleet.these toys are not cheap:) especially carrier's maintanance is really expensive as i heard.

[PruneJuice]

I have a magic 8 ball :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

http://www.whoknew.us/8_ball/2.gif


90 year?? Where you get this information from sir? :laugh4:

[Janbaz]

Iran is NOT in need of Aircraft Carrier. The only reason that you want to have an Aircraft carrier if you want to project your power beyond your immediate land borders. Like US, Russia, England, France, and China. Iran is a reginal superpower and not a world superpower.

[Power_Serj]

Iran is a nothing superpower. They don't have any traits of a superpower. Cocky military commanders, and proxy terrorist organizations does not equal superpower.

[Xerxes]

^^^

I agree, Iran today is much like today's superpowers in their ealier days ;)

so i guess by using your definition of "proxy terrorist organizations", the autocrat South Vietnam government could have been considered one. right?
wasnt the Free French considered as a "proxy terrorist organizations" by the Vichy France and the German Reich.

cocky military commanders ==> like Patton, crazy Mac-Arthur, the maniac Lemay

My dear Power-Seji, pleaseeeeeeeeee

[Pylyp Orlyk]

Iran is a nothing superpower. They don't have any traits of a superpower. Cocky military commanders, and proxy terrorist organizations does not equal superpower.

They are by no means a super power but the contention was they were a regional power and this they are. All the Gulf States might have bunch of fancy US equipment but they have nobody to man it. They are paper armies. Iran has it's own military industrial base, a huge population and resources. She has all the characteristics of being the regional hegemon of the Middle East, now that Iraq is gone that is exactly what she is.

[Xerxes]

They are by no means a super power but the contention was they were a regional power and this they are. All the Gulf States might have bunch of fancy US equipment but they have nobody to man it. They are paper armies. Iran has it's own military industrial base, a huge population and resources. She has all the characteristics of being the regional hegemon of the Middle East, now that Iraq is gone that is exactly what she is.


dont worry about Power_serji. He is very nice guy, but he thinks that untill CNN or FOX proclaim somesort Iranian hegemony in the region, it is not officially there.

The superpower-critrea that he put for a superpower are incredibly stupid:

Criterea 1&2 fits all the world's superpower in the human history

1) Cocky military commanders
2) proxy terrorist organizations does not equal superpower.

Criterea 3 is just too damn stupid, By his account, a superpower must be of a charming character. We all know how charming Nazi Germany was as regional superpower and as a Great Power, or how well Imperial Japan really fits the profile. or the late USSR with a high whooping record of 40 millions killed during the Stalin-Lenin glorious days.

Comeon , power_serj, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
you got to stop making me laugh :) I got work to do :roflmao3:

[crod]

I fail to see what good a carrier will do anybody these days. And just to correct, China does not operate any carrier, they have bought bits of one (Kiev) but it is by no means operational. 2010 is the best suggestion but this is from shoddy sources. They are also reconsidering the massive expense due the vulnerability from submarines. The carriers around China which belong to the Americans will be under sever threat if they were to get involved with any dispute in that region from Chinese subs, hypothetically speaking of course.

There is plenty of good in pouring the money into submarines though. Incidentally, how many modern diesel subs can you buy for one carrier?

Anyway Iran isn’t in the business of trying to secure the world so why bother going down that road all? Build up the anti shipping, submarine and missile abilities for defence I say.
:)

[Ardashir]

No carrier I say!

Long range Missiles, Long range planes (Specially bombers), many subs, some distroyers.

Only Americans can/would build carriers, and those pretty ships gonna poof out if any major conflict occures & many Billions on Ship and it's planes will burn in hours.

[Laibach]

Why would iran need an aircraft carrier? it is not practical as it is for projection of force..

[Power_Serj]

I don't watch CNN nor Fox so stop making some false claims on your ignorance of where I get my news from. :frown3:

I never said superpowers don't have cocky military commanders and proxy terrorist organizations. I said just because you have this, doesn't mean you are a superpower.

What makes you think Iran is a regional superpower?

[AK54]

I fail to see what good a carrier will do anybody these days. And just to correct, China does not operate any carrier, they have bought bits of one (Kiev) but it is by no means operational. 2010 is the best suggestion but this is from shoddy sources. They are also reconsidering the massive expense due the vulnerability from submarines. The carriers around China which belong to the Americans will be under sever threat if they were to get involved with any dispute in that region from Chinese subs, hypothetically speaking of course.

There is plenty of good in pouring the money into submarines though. Incidentally, how many modern diesel subs can you buy for one carrier?

Anyway Iran isn’t in the business of trying to secure the world so why bother going down that road all? Build up the anti shipping, submarine and missile abilities for defence I say.
:)

yes, because carriers are always sent out alone and left vulnerable to attack, especially during war :wub2:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l296/AK5489/battlegroup2.jpg

[Xerxes]

I don't watch CNN nor Fox so stop making some false claims on your ignorance of where I get my news from. :frown3:

Now you know how bad it is when someone accuses you of watching Al-jazzera. :frown3:

so now that you got a taste of your own medicine, please reply back to me and tell me "was it correct for you to accuse me of watching al-jazeera, even though you do not even know me"

btw i was just kidding for you

I never said superpowers don't have cocky military commanders and proxy terrorist organizations. I said just because you have this, doesn't mean you are a superpower.

What makes you think Iran is a regional superpower?

I never said Iran is a regional superpower. Iran is not a regional superpower, but it will by default the moment US leaves the region. Iran is regional power.

Please show me where did i said otherwise??

[PJPM]

it's takes like 7 years for iran to build one if it really has to. but it's going to be a long boat that can float and hold 40 planes thats it. nothing speical about it, i mean any country that can build a boat can build a aircraft carrier but it's just gonna be a long boat with airplanes.

[Power_Serj]

I think you're simplifying it way to much. I can build a row boat from wood, so with the money, I can build an aircraft carrier according to your logic. It's far more complicated than that.

[PJPM]

I think you're simplifying it way to much. I can build a row boat from wood, so with the money, I can build an aircraft carrier according to your logic. It's far more complicated than that.

it is complicated like the US version but it's really a boat that can hold 40 planes and has is long so the plane can fly. u can build a big boat than u can built aircraft carrier but it's not that usefull for iran.

[crod]

[QUOTE=AK54;62783]yes, because carriers are always sent out alone and left vulnerable to attack, especially during war :wub2:

Well you’ve just assumed I thought they were out there all on there own having the craic with themselves, philosophising about chess, tennis and maybe even dangers posed by swooping magpies in spring with little or no support both above and below surface. The fact remains they are still very much open to attack from subs and for Iran (who if you read the thread carefully and just make ***-umption we are talking about) they are better off investing in what I said.

:)

[mehrzad]

[QUOTE=AK54;62783]yes, because carriers are always sent out alone and left vulnerable to attack, especially during war :wub2:

Well you’ve just assumed I thought they were out there all on there own having the craic with themselves, philosophising about chess, tennis and maybe even dangers posed by swooping magpies in spring with little or no support both above and below surface. The fact remains they are still very much open to attack from subs and for Iran (who if you read the thread carefully and just make ***-umption we are talking about) they are better off investing in what I said.

:)

look iran dosent need this. if iran goes to war america will come to them. can you seriously imagine iran with its carrier in the american seas launching f-4s and f-14 when they dont have the spareparts for some of the components. though iran dosent need it,it wouldnt be a bad idea if iran built a carrier then bought some su-33 to go with it.

[kaiser_tr]

you even dont have a real navy:) how will you cover your carrier plzzz

[PJPM]

you even dont have a real navy:) how will you cover your carrier plzzz

you shouldn't talk about something you don't know. also you should think before you speak.

[kaiser_tr]

yeah i know:) no need to think twice.its simple fact...iran's navy is very very weak...

[PJPM]

yeah i know:) no need to think twice.its simple fact...iran's navy is very very weak...

that just proves the fact that you havn't think before speaking.

[Janbaz]

yeah i know:) no need to think twice.its simple fact...iran's navy is very very weak...

When some one says this is weak or strong, you must of comparing it with some thing, right?...

If you want to compare the Iranian Navy with any Gulf Arab states, I assure you that Iranian Navy is very formidable and strong (just lke it was during PG1 (Iran-Iraq) war. Comparing it to Pakistan, same thing, Iran comes way on top. Comapring it with Israel, yes in this regard, Iran comes on top as well. Comparing it with Russia, China, US, British, Germany, then you are right, Iran is weak but can also infelect a heavy damage/casulty.

As I said many times before, what you see on the news is different than what Iran have. What you see and hear on the news is about ~10 (-/+2) year old news to Iranian Armed forces. That means they have had it for many years.

[crod]

[QUOTE=crod;63348]

look iran dosent need this. if iran goes to war america will come to them. can you seriously imagine iran with its carrier in the american seas launching f-4s and f-14 when they dont have the spareparts for some of the components. though iran dosent need it,it wouldnt be a bad idea if iran built a carrier then bought some su-33 to go with it.

that is the point most of us are making. let me spell it out. Iran doesnt need a carrier!!! :)

people should read all of the posts and not just see one and then quote. damn thats just lazy

[Land-Man]

"Doesn't need" is code for "Can't Afford/Build" a carrier, for the foreseeable future at least. Why don't we invest in infrastucture first? Rather than buying 2nd rate military platforms from Russia.

[crod]

agree completely

[mehrzad]

"Doesn't need" is code for "Can't Afford/Build" a carrier, for the foreseeable future at least. Why don't we invest in infrastucture first? Rather than buying 2nd rate military platforms from Russia.

are u insane oil is at an all time high and you say iran cant afford 2bln dollars to build a piece of machinery that it doesnt need. do us all a favour go see the doctor as soon as

[PJPM]

this is not a matter a money or technology well meybe a little technology it's a matter that it's pointless for iran to have one for now.

[Pylyp Orlyk]

this is not a matter a money or technology well meybe a little technology it's a matter that it's pointless for iran to have one for now.

She is not ready quite yet, once she expands control over Iraq she will be ready and financially able to support a carrier.

[Khaybar]

I think Iran should buy the Kuznetsov from Russia, it's just sitting there in Mourmansk or Kamchatka doing nothing, with Iran it could be of some use.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[PruneJuice]

Iran cannot build an Aircraft carrier anytime soon.

[rabs]

Iran doesnt have the know how, doesnt have the facilties, and doesnt have the aircraft. Unless they want to re-fit their F4s.

Does Iran even have a shipyard large enough to build a decent sized carrier?

They have no way of protecting a carrier out side of the PG.

No point in deploying a carrier when it cant leave your own waters.

Whos going to train Iran on how to operate a carrier? The russians, that everytime they try to launch their flankers from their decks they lose a few to crashes?

[Khaybar]

Russian technologie is crude, but more durable than anything, for example you can take a German radio smash it on the floor, it would brake, take a Russian radio, smashed it on the floor, it would make all kinds of noises, but it would still work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Pylyp Orlyk]

Iran doesnt have the know how, doesnt have the facilties, and doesnt have the aircraft. Unless they want to re-fit their F4s.

Does Iran even have a shipyard large enough to build a decent sized carrier?

They have no way of protecting a carrier out side of the PG.

No point in deploying a carrier when it cant leave your own waters.

Whos going to train Iran on how to operate a carrier? The russians, that everytime they try to launch their flankers from their decks they lose a few to crashes?

Ukraine built Russian carriers, they come to us when they are ready.

[Khaybar]

You'll make an exellent salesman for the Ukrainian defence ministry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Pylyp Orlyk]

You'll make an exellent salesman for the Ukrainian defence ministry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

Who said I don't? You think military pays me enough... :roflmao3:

[Khaybar]

So you are a salesman, of sorts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Pylyp Orlyk]

So you are a salesman, of sorts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

I am reserve officer... I do have day job and it involves defense sales. That's how I know english so well, I need it for business transactions.

[Khaybar]

So how much an Oplot's going around the market these days?
Can you smuglle me an Ak, inside your briefcase?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Janbaz]

So how much an Oplot's going around the market these days?
Can you smuglle me an Ak, inside your briefcase?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

LOL.... :roflmao3:

[Fabio]

Iran Super power???
Why??only for the Military industry??
For me a Super power today is a peacfull country with a 100% ecologic Politic!!(Solar and wind energy, Hydrogen cars, ect...)
A Super power is a country with human rights and eguality between girls and boys!!
A Superpower is a country that divide religion (religion as a private and cultural factor, a free decision) from politic!!
A superpower is a country that hate weapons (above all this dirtyNuclear System) and love peace!!Superpower??Countries that think to be a Superpower only for Military situations are Idiot powers!!

[Fabio]

No More War On The World!!!
No More Weapons!
Use The Money To Built Weapons To Buy Food For African Childrens
To Built Schools For African Poor Children
Use The Money From Nuke Bombs To Give To A Poor Child The Possibility To Grow In A Safer And Cleaner World!!

[Khaybar]

No More War On The World!!!
No More Weapons!
Use The Money To Built Weapons To Buy Food For African Childrens
To Built Schools For African Poor Children
Use The Money From Nuke Bombs To Give To A Poor Child The Possibility To Grow In A Safer And Cleaner World!!

This is simple for you to say, you live in Italy, or Europe, where you are safe, we in the Middle East, are under constant threat from israel and other colonial imperialistic powers, and we must look to protect ourselves, and our independance.

Our people comes first before people living in Africa, this might sound harsh, but we don't have the economical luxury that the us has, who spends 500 billion dollars a year on it's military budget.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[mehrzad]

Iran Super power???
Why??only for the Military industry??
For me a Super power today is a peacfull country with a 100% ecologic Politic!!(Solar and wind energy, Hydrogen cars, ect...)
A Super power is a country with human rights and eguality between girls and boys!!
A Superpower is a country that divide religion (religion as a private and cultural factor, a free decision) from politic!!
A superpower is a country that hate weapons (above all this dirtyNuclear System) and love peace!!Superpower??Countries that think to be a Superpower only for Military situations are Idiot powers!!

are u feeling ok. cause it seems u are saying the u.s is not a superpower.:tired1_24:

[Fabio]

yes I know and this is a very terrible situation, (every time i see things like these on tv i begin to cry for the world), but tell me why don't you begin to show to all this f....g countries that you are capable to change thing in Peace, with a new draw of politic?? Countries like Afganistan, countries like Libia (Dictature), have to change!!!!!!This is not possible that a woman is not allowed to go to school!!Israel??Palestina??
U have to think about modernity about the future because the future is yours too, the world is our, we all are owners of this world, and there are no borderlines!!
Think about peace!!
This is why u can be better than the Us, u have to use intelligence!!
In Europe we don't like so much The USa too, because our minds are different!!we are more socialist, more democratic !!

[Fabio]

I think that all new generations have to think about peace and to put away oil!!!

[Fabio]

the answer is simply:
Use more renevable energies, learn to your childrens that there is a better way than OIL/Petrol, learn to all young children in the middle east that there are other ways to create energy!!!
God gave us the sunn, the wind, the water!!We have to put away oil/Petrol, this is the Key for freedom!!

[mehrzad]

fabio agree with you. the only war is complete diarment of all armys,airforce and navy's

[crod]

Iran Super power???
Why??only for the Military industry??
For me a Super power today is a peacfull country with a 100% ecologic Politic!!(Solar and wind energy, Hydrogen cars, ect...)
A Super power is a country with human rights and eguality between girls and boys!!
A Superpower is a country that divide religion (religion as a private and cultural factor, a free decision) from politic!!
A superpower is a country that hate weapons (above all this dirtyNuclear System) and love peace!!Superpower??Countries that think to be a Superpower only for Military situations are Idiot powers!!

nicely put :) but...


Yes indeed the much sought after and very illusive “perfect world”. The reality check of course which happens usually when one wakes up and is eating breakfast is that we (the west) strive on strife. We need the turmoil in the world to progress our economies and our way of life. I mean what on earth would we do if abolished the unfair trade agreements, pay more? Surely no one could ever expect us to do that. How unfair. And how exactly does one expect us to drive our economies, cars, military complex and indulge in leisurely holidays on cheap airline fares? How unfair, we need this imbalance in both global military and economic affairs. Please don’t try and take it away from me!

C :)

Ps. Damn it, looks like I got a long NCO life ahead of me yet. How many post required to make Lt.? If on held a commissioned rank for real can we be promptly promoted? I bet you a tenner we cant! :)

[rotop]

This is simple for you to say, you live in Italy, or Europe, where you are safe, we in the Middle East, are under constant threat from israelYou are LYING. Iran is threatening Israel. Why are you lying? :mad:

[Khaybar]

You are LYING. Iran is threatening Israel. Why are you lying?

I'm not Irani, i live in Lebanon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[blackboard79]

fabio agree with you. the only war is complete diarment of all armys,airforce and navy's

The last time this came close to happening I believe hitler came into power.

[mehrzad]

The last time this came close to happening I believe hitler came into power.

well hitler isnt here now is he.

[TeamAmerica]

I doubt Iran will have a carrier for the next 25 years at the very least.

[azrael]

Base ships are obselete, develop a fetish for something more pragmatic.

[Fulkrum]

I doubt Iran will have a carrier for the next 25 years at the very least.

I doubt they'll have one at all, seeing as they have no need for one nor have the techincal base to produce, or will have such a base within any reasonable amount of time. An aircraft carrier is an expensive investment, and that's why only the most well funded and experienced navies, such as the United States', Russian, British, and French, possess them.

[Paladin's Horse]

America's love for the aircraft carrier predates WWI with the introduction of naval aviation from the installed flightdeck of the USS Birmingham. No other country in the world, with the exception of Great Britain has had the benefit of technological advances in the area of naval aviation. A force of 13 carriers is enough to ensure US supremacy unrivaled anywhere on the planet. Iran can dream of having one, but why??? An Iranian carrier in the Persian Gulf would just make for a "target-rich" environment. It wouldn't stand a chance in a real war. Remember the Sabalan?

[Sith]

A Super Carrier like the US uses is really a psycological weapon, it is too vulnerable to nations with real ship busting weaponry.

If Iran builds a carrier, it will be a Jeep carrier capable of carrying 6 VSTOL Aircraft and several Helicopters. The smaller size allows a better weapon coverage and better manueverability.

But by the time Iran reaches that point, it would make more sense to invest in a space program.

[azrael]

Again, iran has no intentions of building an omrikiye style base ship, it does not serve her defense needs. We are not trying to hold together a failing world system like the omrikiye, we do not need to project fear across the globe to hold together a corrupt world system devoid of justice and humanity. And on a very practical note, base ships are obselete in a world where globalization allows any determined group who can put together the money for a few plane tickets to strike at the heart of their enemy. How many base ships do the omriki need to prevent the al-qaeda/mossad attack on washington, new york and pennsylvannia from being repeated?

[Paladin's Horse]

America's carrier force is worthless without her Aegis destroyers and cruisers...a few FFG's, and forwarded SSN's. But the real strength of the American navy is it's ability to forward deploy amphibious forces ashore...the carrier simply provides the air dominance and the long-range fire power to assist with this mission. During the Cold War, the end of the supercarrier was predicted with the advent of super-speed anti-ship cruise missles and silent submarines, but the big ships are still there. Just a little more older, a little more bolder, and still quite lethal. The new LHA(R) is the ship of the future for the United States. Smaller than a Nimitz class, she is gas-turbine powered and carriers 25 VSTOL strike fighters as well as vertical envelopment aircraft.

[Falco]

i dont think iran needs a carrier at all. they rather should invest in a much stronger airforce!
iran is not in the need to attack a country on the other side of the globe at all...also: what money shall they pay it with?? carriers are extremely expansive. you need the carrier itself, a trained crew( maybe they will be trained by indian/russian aircraft carrier soldiers[maybe even french...]) and as Paladin's Horse already said, you need a fleet to protect the carrier(also huge summs for ships, training etc.)!!
finaly you need aircrafts for an aircraft-carrier^^
the f14s areent up to date anymore, so they would have to buy them(propally russian su33http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33s/m aybe even french rafale marinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale) or develop one themselves, which would also cost lots of money.
i dont think the persian navy will invest billions of dollars for something they dont need at all...

[Dylan]

Since when is France going to sell fighter jets to Iran?

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Who need one. Are they not antiquated for modern warfare? For a carrier to be a viable means of defense it would have to be faster than 360km/h (233mph). I do not think there is any ship that fast but if anybody finds one, let me know. All Iran needs is small, fast, possibly N-Powered U-boats and torpedo's we already have.

In case you didn't know already

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm

[Falco]

Since when is France going to sell fighter jets to Iran?
well, since france did not participate in the Eurofighter-programme, they wanted to develop their own plane. the Dassault Rafale. For the french aircraft-carrier Charles de Gaulle they evelopped a carrier-version, the Rafale Marine. And because noone (not even the french armed forces anymore) is going to buy the plane, they offer it to anyone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

[Paladin's Horse]

While no doubt, the Iranians see themselves as the "up and coming" premier Mid-East power, they are far from being able to project a "Blue-water Navy"...that being able to sustain full combat operations for a 90-day period of time in any ocean without being re-armed, refueled, or resupplied. Back in the 1970's the United States designed a "super" Spruance-class destroyer with an angled short VSTOL flight deck and two elevators. This would have allowed her up to 7 VSTOL aircraft or ASW helos. It can facilitate a higher "survivability rate" than most 9800 ton warships with greater maneuverability and an impressive VLS and AEGIS weapon system. The version that was to be delivered to the Iranians was the "Ayatollah" class without the improved flight deck. The final sale and delivery of these impressive sleek steel dreadnoughts was put on hold after the Shah Fell in the late 70's. Designing a warship along this concept would make the Iranian Navy more formidable, easy to build and much less costly to maintain. Nuclear-powered warships require at least 10 hours prior to getting underway to light off engineering plants...true, they can steam forever, they are also easy to spot from ELINT satellites. They can do in excess of 45 knots, but they emit an enormous electronic noise signature while doing so. While the United States has the financial wherewithal, spending nearly 4% GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on it's total military budget, it could spend much more. I don't think the average Iranian goes to bed at night worried about not having an aircraft carrier...rather they fear their own government spreading it's totalitarian philosophy through the use of one.

[azrael]

While no doubt, the Iranians see themselves as the "up and coming" premier Mid-East power, they are far from being able to project a "Blue-water Navy"...that being able to sustain full combat operations for a 90-day period of time in any ocean without being re-armed, refueled, or resupplied. Back in the 1970's the United States designed a "super" Spruance-class destroyer with an angled short VSTOL flight deck and two elevators. This would have allowed her up to 7 VSTOL aircraft or ASW helos. It can facilitate a higher "survivability rate" than most 9800 ton warships with greater maneuverability and an impressive VLS and AEGIS weapon system. The version that was to be delivered to the Iranians was the "Ayatollah" class without the improved flight deck. The final sale and delivery of these impressive sleek steel dreadnoughts was put on hold after the Shah Fell in the late 70's. Designing a warship along this concept would make the Iranian Navy more formidable, easy to build and much less costly to maintain. Nuclear-powered warships require at least 10 hours prior to getting underway to light off engineering plants...true, they can steam forever, they are also easy to spot from ELINT satellites. They can do in excess of 45 knots, but they emit an enormous electronic noise signature while doing so. While the United States has the financial wherewithal, spending nearly 4% GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on it's total military budget, it could spend much more. I don't think the average Iranian goes to bed at night worried about not having an aircraft carrier...rather they fear their own government spreading it's totalitarian philosophy through the use of one.


a) By the so-called ayatollah class, you are referencing the kidd class a modification to the spurance class medium mass vessel. The kidd class has neither aviation elevators nor the ability to carry more than two small helicopters or one medium size helicopter.

b) totalitarian philosphy? is this something similar to president bush's statement that "you are either with us or against us? as he embraces dictators in ordan, mesr and saudi. I'll not spin some tale about how iran is heaven on earth or some such rubbish, we are a nation that has it's fair share of problems but also more than it's fair share of courage to work thru those problems.

[Paladin's Horse]

Nope!!!lots of moden day naval historians will show how the modern Spruance destroyer also became the advanced platform for the Kidd class, Ayatollah, and Ticonderoga class CG. But few actually have seen where the platform itself was studied for design implementation of a modern midget-class carrier. Quite impressive, the same hull would remain "Spruance-like" while an angled flightdeck would run over half of the ship's length extending the leading edge of the flightdeck just foward of the port beam. The two elevators are located along the flightdeck "centerline". Forward of the ship's conning tower would have included the VLS. The design was produced during the late seventies as a possible answer to the United State's desire to produce a more versatile "Sea Control Platform", able to respond accordingly...the best way to describe it's appearance is to think of a smaller British Invincible or Ark Royal class. Over all of my years in the U.S. Navy, no other ship has given as much as the Spruance class. Even though she is obsolete by U.S. standards, as all have now been decommissioned...she still provided the entire backbone of the ASW force. The U.S. opted to redesign the hugely successful LHA and thus produced 8 LHDs, the 9th to be gas-turbine(4 LM-2500's). But she is a lot slower than nuclear-powered carrier. Simply speaking, the Spruance hull would have been able to support a flightdeck of nearly 300 feet in length and carry 7 VSTOL aircraft within her hanger(running under the flightdeck from near stern to almost midships....Secondly, you ask of my opinion of the Iranian vision for the modern world. Two Iranian F-14 pilots that I trained and came to admire during the 70's as friends and colleagues who served in the Iranian Air Force suffered terribly as a result of the overthrow of the Shah. One was executed for his refusal to fly combat missions. The other was imprisoned for his loyalty to the Shah...I have never heard from him again. He managed to get his wife and 2 children out of Iran before the goverment fell. Totalitarism as she would say is having to leave everything you've ever loved behind for someone who was not deserving of it.

[azrael]

Nope!!!lots of moden day naval historians will show how the modern Spruance destroyer also became the advanced platform for the Kidd class, Ayatollah, and Ticonderoga class CG. But few actually have seen where the platform itself was studied for design implementation of a modern midget-class carrier. Quite impressive, the same hull would remain "Spruance-like" while an angled flightdeck would run over half of the ship's length extending the leading edge of the flightdeck just foward of the port beam. The two elevators are located along the flightdeck "centerline". Forward of the ship's conning tower would have included the VLS. The design was produced during the late seventies as a possible answer to the United State's desire to produce a more versatile "Sea Control Platform", able to respond accordingly...the best way to describe it's appearance is to think of a smaller British Invincible or Ark Royal class. Over all of my years in the U.S. Navy, no other ship has given as much as the Spruance class. Even though she is obsolete by U.S. standards, as all have now been decommissioned...she still provided the entire backbone of the ASW force. The U.S. opted to redesign the hugely successful LHA and thus produced 8 LHDs, the 9th to be gas-turbine(4 LM-2500's). But she is a lot slower than nuclear-powered carrier. Simply speaking, the Spruance hull would have been able to support a flightdeck of nearly 300 feet in length and carry 7 VSTOL aircraft within her hanger(running under the flightdeck from near stern to almost midships....

a) live and learn


Secondly, you ask of my opinion of the Iranian vision for the modern world. Two Iranian F-14 pilots that I trained and came to admire during the 70's as friends and colleagues who served in the Iranian Air Force suffered terribly as a result of the overthrow of the Shah. One was executed for his refusal to fly combat missions. The other was imprisoned for his loyalty to the Shah...I have never heard from him again. He managed to get his wife and 2 children out of Iran before the goverment fell. Totalitarism as she would say is having to leave everything you've ever loved behind for someone who was not deserving of it.



b) i don't wish this to sound vulgur or come across as sounding off the cuff when i say this, but execution for failure to perform ones duty in war time is not only common around this planet but also expected. Men get scared in war, they forget themselves and fall into instinct in those brief moments when the air pressure changes rapidly as shells and rockets find ther marks all around you. Loyalty to ones unit, to ones comrade in arms normally keeps most men in line , but ocasionally for exceptional individuals or exceptional moments the fear of the chain of command needs to be brought into play to remind men of their obligations. If you want to call this totalitarism , so be it , it was a very desperate struggle, and i can't imagine how it must be to fly deep over enemy held land alone or with just 1 more human being with you knowing that you can be shot down, but i know what it means to fear for ones life and the lives of those within your responsibilty, and personaly if i faltered in such a moment , knowing my nation was in danger, i would consider it a blessing if a better man were to put a pistol to my temples and relieve me of my shame. This is not bravado, merely the words of someone who had already experienced his moment of cowardice and who has no wish to ever repeat it.

As to the circumstances of the other fellow, the one imprisoned for loyalty to the shah. You have to understand for that generation, the shah was akin to what hitler is in the eyes of omrikiye, being loyal to him was beyond the pale. By the way, iran has several dozen different political factions and a distributed form of government since the revolution. It is of course by no means perfect, very much a work in progress but compared to shah's truly totalitarian police state where people would just disappear one day and never be seen again for expressing their feelings about how pot holes take to long to be fixed it can be considered a paradise. Now the police may arrest or harass you these days for silly things like morality violations, but your loved ones won't have to go for years wondering what happened to you as in the previous u.s. sponsored dictatorship or the current u.s. sponsored dictatorships of ordan, mesr and saud.

[Paladin's Horse]

Hello again...its good for people to be able to reason together. Perhaps this is the secret to avoiding war. His viewpoints were not unlike yours or mine or anybodyelse's. In fact, he was a damn good chess player and had a far better explanation for life and made an incredible prediction in 1975 when I first met him. He was a former F-4 Phantom pilot interested in the F-14 program after he and others felt that the Russian Mig-25 and the Backfire bomber could not be intercepted with the average fighter of the day. Now for the incredible part. He knew that Iraq would instigate a war with Iran in the near future,(this back in 1975)at the behest of Russia as part of deal to defeat the Iranian nation from an Eastern front(Russia through Afghanistan), and from the Western front (Iraq moving toward Tehran) simultaneously. Saddam Hussein must have known that there was no way for his own country of some 24 million people to defeat his neighbor of nearly 65 million. Unless, that is, he felt confident that Russia could secure a quick and decisive victory in Afghanistan and advance toward the Persian empire just as quickly. Do you think that maybe Russia withdrew from the Afghan War because of American help resupplying the Afghan Freedom fighters? they were humiliated in a war that became very unpopular after loosing over 14,000 soldiers. It was their "Viet Nam". The whole point of the Cold War for Russia was to move into the entire Arabian Gulf region and seize warm water ports. We didn't trust them as allies in WWII as they seized half of Berlin after the end of the war. The Shah was aware of this and sided with the United States, maybe seen as brutal in his methods. If the Communist expansionist idealogy had succeeded, where would modern Iran be today? Iran would never be allowed to control its own Petrol dollars and improve it's wellbeing. People in Iran would not be allowed the freedom they somewhat enjoy today. As evidence...just look at any Communist country that followed Russia's lead...they all went broke and eventually fell. While some enjoy a "free-market society" in Russia, most simply exist in obscurity. If you ask the average European or North American who they think won the Cold War, you will get this answer...4 people(Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, the Pope, and the Polish Opposition Union Leader)...these four brought down the Soviet empire. Now...ask the same question to the average man on the "Arab" street and the answer will be completely different. They will insist it was Osama Bin Laden and his band of Arab fighters that forced Russia from Arab lands. So, who is technically correct? Both. Russia would have crushed the Persian Empire without the vision of the Shah. My two friends have never been heard from since I knew of their fate, but hey helped America funnel weapons to beat the Soviet front in Afghanistan, knowing they would pay with their lives. I think they got it right, even though Iranian history has painted them in the ugliest of terms. I still don't trust the Russian Kremlin even though I feel empathy for it's people. They would not hesitate to revive the former empire they feel was unfairly lost, even if it meant invading another country like they did in Afghanistan. Long story I know...but America is not the enemy of the free world.

[SALTY]

Hello Paladin, couple of things I think you should know
First of all by looking at you posts, I believe you are a sailor, and as a sailor you should know that there is NO Arabian Gulf, we have a Arabian Sea but no such thing as an Arabian Gulf!

Secondly, if you look at this site you see that it's full of Iranians that although living in the West but are pro Mullahs and the Islamic regime. The reason for this is that most of the Iranian members that are otherwise against the mullahs get banned by moderators such as Flanker. So these pro mullah members that remain are either in denial or they outright lie when it comes to the affairs of the Islamic regime. Like this last person, ask him if the Islamic regime is so much better than the Shah's regime why almost 4 million Iranians risked life and limb to escape from Iran after the mullahs took over.
So don't even bother to have an intelligent conversation with them because it's just waisting your time!

[azrael]

The shoravi(rus) and my people share a common history, we've fought wars together and against each other since their nation was born on our frontiers. We understand how they think and we've been able to manage their hunger for southern expansion ever since they broke lose of mongol rule a couple of centuries after us. Their move into afghanistan , just like their attack into chechnya was shear idiocy, but if you undestand the shoravi, then you'll know that they are very active people, much vigour, sometimes this clouds their judgement. They are too eager and impulsive sometimes and this always works against their best interests. But compared to the omrikiye they are models of patience. :)

Iranians are not a people to adopt communism anymore than we are too accept u.s. hegemony influence in the rhythms of our daily lives; we are too proud , :) or maybe arrogant is the word. The shah was a fool, i admired his sister , she had steel in her eyes much like his father, but the shah was a weakling who relied on foreigners to secure his position, he could never be accepted by the people as legitimate and thus he resorted to ruling by death squads. We chose our path and there is no going back, we have written our history and it must be played out, either our position in the region will be accepted by the u.s. hegemony or there will be a conflagration that will engulf this planet. This is not a threat merely my observation. My people are too proud to bow our heads, this arrogance has been our birthright for millenia.

I hope the leaders of the u.s. recognize that we will never accept them as surezain of our region. And that we will only accept an agreement based on equality of interests and non-interference in iran's internal affairs, short of this conflict is unavoidable.
May peace be upon you.

[Paladin's Horse]

I've slowed down since retirement...sorry about "Arabian Gulf"...that was in older days...now the world is even smaller...meaner...and more eager to play with lethal power.

[azrael]

I've slowed down since retirement...sorry about "Arabian Gulf"...that was in older days...now the world is even smaller...meaner...and more eager to play with lethal power.
such is the way of the world, but only some of the times

[Paladin's Horse]

This is one of the renderings I that I have seen throughout the late 1970's...Proceedings had a few articles, but not a lot of interest. The LHA won out hands down over any other idea. The perfect carrier would be a modified Essex with angled deck and a much better surveillance systems. I woke up this morning to good news that Sadaam was hung...good or bad, I'm wondering how the rest of the world will react. Happy Holidays to you and yours.

[azrael]

I think for the most part that man's passing from the earth is a blessing and hopefully a sign that a bloody era has passed and maybe there is hope for a more rational future.

Merry christmas and a happy christian new year.

[Paladin's Horse]

anything is possible...by the way you did good work with the Spruance/Air capable design. Her 5'54 gun mount up front needs to be replaced with VLS...give it 4 uppgraded Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG's for escorts...now that put's it on the cutting edge.