BF2S Forums Russia delivers missiles to Iran

Parker wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Parker wrote:

what about it.....mikoyan is the only russian company you listed.....our planes are better.
correct me if im wrong, but h and k is a german company and lockheed is american.

They're all companies Iran military hardware is made by.

Anyone who discounts MiG-29 SMTs (like Iran use), really doesn't know what they're talking about. The MiG-29 SMT is comparable to virtually anything the US use. It doesn't have fancy and expensive stealth technology, but on combat ability, you really want to watch out.

yes but that same mig will get shot down LONG before it sees the F22 that fired the missle, or the AWACS that saw it in the first place. combat ability doesnt mean shit if there is nothing to combat.

whatever missle system they have isnt as good as the AEGIS system, period.
didnt know that h&k supplies iran....lol, no more money to them from me...oh well the USPs and SOCOMS are pretty useless anyway. but hey the G3 was a blast to shoot.....
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … era066.flv
and as for lockheed, im sure whatever they are selling to iran, we already know how to shut it down if we ever need to.
so i stick to my original statement.....but ill clarify...i was speaking about the russians, i believe they cannot make military hardware that is good. exception-any kalishnikov.

How much do F-22s cost ($360 million)? It's not a comparable plane. The chances of the US attacking Iran are virtually nill. Israel however, using F-15s etc. would provide exactly the type of target the MiG-29s were designed to counter. The F-22 is an exceptional fighter, but it's too expensive and the USAF are buying very few of them.

Which is why the MiGs have been the most successfully marketed jet fighters in history.

As far as I'm concerned Iran doesn't need a reactor because their leader is too much of a complete nutjob. I do believe that he's pursuing a bomb and when he achieves it he'll sell off some to terrorists and then what? If there were a stable leader this would all be different. Russia selling missles? Well that just proves they're not our allies. As was mentioned earlier about the reactor in Iraq, Israel had to take action because Iraq had every intention of wiping them off the face of the planet. I stand by Israel and that decision, I don't know how anyone else could have wanted Iraq to develop a bomb, need I remind you that the reactor was sold to Iraq by France, so there ya go.

Stingray24 wrote:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1247362.php/US_objects_to_Russian_sale_of_anti-aircraft_missiles_to_Iran

http://www.middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/?id=19013

MOSCOW - "Controversial Russian contracts to sell anti-aircraft weapons to Syria and Iran are being fulfilled on schedule, Russian news agencies cited defence and industry officials as saying Tuesday.  At least half of the 29 Tor-M1 missile systems bought by Iran for 1.4 billion dollars (1.06 billion euros) had been delivered, state-run ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed source at the defence ministry as saying.  "We are actively carrying out deliveries of the system to Iran. At least 50 percent of the contract has been delivered," the official was quoted as saying.  The air defence systems are being stationed around Iran's civilian nuclear sites, according to ITAR-TASS."

Civilian nuclear sites ... riiiiight.  That's why the need AA missiles.

So a couple of countries have bought some defensive weapons?  What's the big deal?

It's only a problem if you're planning an invasion of some description.

aardfrith wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1247362.php/US_objects_to_Russian_sale_of_anti-aircraft_missiles_to_Iran

http://www.middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/?id=19013

MOSCOW - "Controversial Russian contracts to sell anti-aircraft weapons to Syria and Iran are being fulfilled on schedule, Russian news agencies cited defence and industry officials as saying Tuesday.  At least half of the 29 Tor-M1 missile systems bought by Iran for 1.4 billion dollars (1.06 billion euros) had been delivered, state-run ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed source at the defence ministry as saying.  "We are actively carrying out deliveries of the system to Iran. At least 50 percent of the contract has been delivered," the official was quoted as saying.  The air defence systems are being stationed around Iran's civilian nuclear sites, according to ITAR-TASS."

Civilian nuclear sites ... riiiiight.  That's why the need AA missiles.

So a couple of countries have bought some defensive weapons?  What's the big deal?

It's only a problem if you're planning an invasion of some description.

Or if Iran is protecting their nuclear weapons development, which we all know is why they are put AA around.

Russia delivers missiles to Iran.  Russia delivers missiles to Cuba.  US delivers weapons to Israel.  US delivers weapons to Europe. 

Ahh...the good old cold war days I grew up in.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-01-16 17:03:05)

Bertster7 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

They're all companies Iran military hardware is made by.

Anyone who discounts MiG-29 SMTs (like Iran use), really doesn't know what they're talking about. The MiG-29 SMT is comparable to virtually anything the US use. It doesn't have fancy and expensive stealth technology, but on combat ability, you really want to watch out.

Stealth allows the thread between life and death for a pilot to stay strong.  The MiG has no hope against a modern US fighter anymore.  There is also the supperior training the US pilots get.  Once the F-22 is put into active military service, there won't be anything that can stand up to it for a long time.

The F-22 is very good, but I think you have too much confidence in it and in stealth technology. The F-22 is comparable to the Typhoon and to the Rafale, better, but still comparable. Price and quantity wise the F-22 could expect to be engaged by these aircraft 2 on 1, in those situations it is very likely the F-22s would lose (depending on operational theatre). Luckily the only country in the middle east with either of these planes is Saudi Arabia, who despite having an appalling human rights record (move over Saddam) and sponsoring lots of terrorism, are allies of the US.

I've seen German MiG-29s making US F-15 pilots look like idiots in training. The MiG-29 is great, just because all these middle eastern pilots are rubbish says nothing of the quality of the plane.

i have enough confidence to tell you that the f22 paired up with an awacs will dust ten of those planes and they still wont know where it is....why?
stealth.
the awacs will spot those bogeys out 190 miles away, and while the pilots in the rafale and typhoon are searching their radars for f22s that arent really there an air to air hits and ruins a bunch of peoples day.......rinse and repeat for enemy free skies

Parker wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Stealth allows the thread between life and death for a pilot to stay strong.  The MiG has no hope against a modern US fighter anymore.  There is also the supperior training the US pilots get.  Once the F-22 is put into active military service, there won't be anything that can stand up to it for a long time.

The F-22 is very good, but I think you have too much confidence in it and in stealth technology. The F-22 is comparable to the Typhoon and to the Rafale, better, but still comparable. Price and quantity wise the F-22 could expect to be engaged by these aircraft 2 on 1, in those situations it is very likely the F-22s would lose (depending on operational theatre). Luckily the only country in the middle east with either of these planes is Saudi Arabia, who despite having an appalling human rights record (move over Saddam) and sponsoring lots of terrorism, are allies of the US.

I've seen German MiG-29s making US F-15 pilots look like idiots in training. The MiG-29 is great, just because all these middle eastern pilots are rubbish says nothing of the quality of the plane.

i have enough confidence to tell you that the f22 paired up with an awacs will dust ten of those planes and they still wont know where it is....why?
stealth.
the awacs will spot those bogeys out 190 miles away, and while the pilots in the rafale and typhoon are searching their radars for f22s that arent really there an air to air hits and ruins a bunch of peoples day.......rinse and repeat for enemy free skies

You have too much faith in unproven stealth technologies. Stealth didn't work out very well for the F-117 did it? That can be picked up by all sorts of crappy radar if it's set to look for it. It's been shot down before as well.

The F-22 has never been tested against quality foreign radar, and I suspect, as has happened with all previous stealth fighters, it's stealth performance will be disappointing.

Parker wrote:

the f117 nighthawk was developed in the 1970s under the carter administration. that is one old plane.....now if you told me that B2s have been shot down, i might question our technology. however, seeing as how that plane delivers its payload without being discovered consistently gives me faith.

you are right that it remains to be seen if it will be as good as everyone thinks.....but judging from the B2s, history (a technology from the 90s) i feel confident that we will own the skies for many years.....besides after this set of jets, they are almost all going to be unmanned.

That's 'cos the B-2 is a high altitude bomber that has been operating solely in areas where the US has air supremacy. It's a very different comparison to be making. How many B-52s without any stealth tech have been shot down doing the same job in the same theatres? None, that's how many. Why should the B-2 be any different?

Fen321 wrote:

I'm not sure if people realize this small factor when discussing the military strike by Israel on a Nuclear site in Iraq. Not only was this a functioning nuclear reactor at the time, a power plant in itself, cannot produce nuclear weapons especially with the state at the time that their weapons development program was at. Yet this is an acceptable use of force for some odd reason. This was a perfect example of a preventive strike that which falls under the category of aggression and violates international law, yet this is okay i remind you since well they are Israel and America loves Israel.

AFAIK Israel has not attacked any site in Iran, nor Iraq for that matter.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to post a link.

Fen321, you forgot that Iran attacked the site first in September, 1980.  Any condemnation for them or just Israel?  In 1981, Israel bombed bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Baghdad because they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.  The attack took place on a Sunday, which prevented harm to the French workers at the site who would have taken the day off and there were no reported casualties.  Clearly showing that they were acting in defense.  Also, the remainder of the facility was destroyed by US aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War.

"The French supplied the Iraqis with nuclear materials and there was a smaller Soviet made reactor on the site.  In addition to the reactor, construction, and technical assistance, the French sold around 28 lb (12.5 kg) of 93% highly enriched uranium (HEU) to the Iraqi government - that would obviously be a concern to the Israelies.  The Iraqi government had tried and failed in 1974 to buy a French gas-graphite plutonium producing reactor and a reprocessing plant, and they had also failed in an attempt to buy an Italian Cirene reactor. France agreed to sell them the MTR and its associated laboratory equipment."

"The Israeli government was deeply concerned at this purchase. Despite Iraqi claims that the plant was for peaceful use, it was an unusual choice — an MTR design is useful for countries with established nuclear reactor construction programs, being used to test and analyze the effects of neutron flux upon metals used in reactor components. However, MTR is not particularly useful to countries which have no established reactor programs, unless they are interested in transmuting U238 to Pu239 to make a bomb, via the high neutron flux characteristic of an MTR.  The reactor used HEU fuel as standard. The substantial Iraqi purchases of uranium ore could be treated at the plant to produce plutonium, and the Iraq government had also purchased a fuel fabrication plant and a recovery 'hot cell'. Furthermore, Iraq was a leading oil and natural gas supplier, so their need for nuclear energy seemed unlikely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

All the reasons above are reasonable reasons to take out the Iraqi site in my opinion. 

Read Amadinutjob's own statements if you need proof he wants nukes. The fact that Iran is protecting the site with AA batteries confirms the military future of the nuclear plants.  Amadinutjob has also clearly expressed his desire to wipe Israel into the sea numerous times.

Good point.  Compare the losses of the enemy to our losses if and see if you still think it's a thrashing, m3thod.  The men we've lost are largely because we are fighting this war in a humanitarian manner - doing our best to keep collateral damage to a minimum.  What would you suggest?  That we go in and just blow up everything with overwhelming firepower and not care if we wipe out numerous civilians?  Of course not.  Then you'd be complaining about that here in this forum.

Bertster7 wrote:

You have too much faith in unproven stealth technologies. Stealth didn't work out very well for the F-117 did it? That can be picked up by all sorts of crappy radar if it's set to look for it. It's been shot down before as well.

The F-22 has never been tested against quality foreign radar, and I suspect, as has happened with all previous stealth fighters, it's stealth performance will be disappointing.

I would not classify stealth technologies as unproven and the stealth technology on the F-117 was groundbreaking and overall effective.   

"Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers away.

Zoltan got some help from his enemies. The NATO commanders often sent their bombers in along the same routes, and didn’t make a big effort to find out if hotshots like Zoltan were down there, and do something about it."

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ … 51121.aspx

As shown above, the F-117 was shot down at short range and was following an established route set by NATO commanders.  Normal conditions would not give the enemy the time to tweak their radar.  Rarely are the encounters short range, enabling the F-117 to jam and/or evade the missile.  I think the F-22 will be an amazing and deadly aircraft, not a disappointment in the least, though certainly not invincible.