PDA

View Full Version : Iran: We're the toughest kids on the block.


alanm
04-18-2008, 08:01 PM
Iran shows off its military might


<!-- S BO --> <!-- S IBYL --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="416"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom"> By Pam O'Toole
BBC News, Tehran
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

<!-- E IBYL --> <!-- S IIMA -->
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="226"> <tbody><tr><td> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44578000/jpg/_44578170_jets_afp_226_170body.jpg Jets flew over the parade

</td></tr> </tbody></table> <!-- E IIMA --> <!-- S SF -->
Iran has been displaying its military power at a ceremony to mark the country's annual army day.
Speaking at the parade, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was the most powerful nation in the world.
The country's strength was such that no major power would dare to challenge its security, he said.
Official media claimed the ceremony included the largest ever show of aerial strength, with a fly past by almost 200 aircraft. <!-- E SF -->
There was also a huge military parade, with missiles displayed on trucks.
Confidence
Top officials have made much of Iran's achievements in being able to maintain and manufacture sophisticated military aircraft or other equipment despite US sanctions against it.
President Ahmadinejad expressed his confidence in the strength of the country's armed forces.
He said Iran was now so powerful that "none of the current world powers are capable of, and have the courage to, threaten the Iranian nation and its interests and security".
The president stressed that Iran's armed forces were purely defensive, but warned that they would respond strongly to any act of aggression.
The parade comes amid continuing tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.
<!-- E BO -->It also follows a recent war of words between Iran and Israel, in which an Iranian deputy army commander said that if Israel attacked Iran, it would be eliminated from the global arena.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7352654.stm

Bowser
04-18-2008, 08:06 PM
"Everyone has a plan. Right up until they get hit."

Bowser
04-18-2008, 08:12 PM
Those F-4's would be pretty intimidating 35 years ago.

BigOlChiefsfan
04-18-2008, 08:25 PM
If only there were F-4 parts available. Anywhere in the world.

ETA - My bad. It's their F-14's that we've pretty much grounded by embargoing repair parts.

Iran Air (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm)

Adept Havelock
04-18-2008, 09:32 PM
If only there were F-4 parts available. Anywhere in the world.

ETA - My bad. It's their F-14's that we've pretty much grounded by embargoing repair parts.

Iran Air (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm)

Well, except for the ones they bought as surplus on Ebay and Craigslist.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?in_article_id=141155&in_page_id=64

ChiefaRoo
04-18-2008, 10:22 PM
If they really were powerful they wouldn't feel the need to talk about how strong they are in public. They'd use their power quietly like the US does.

Logical
04-18-2008, 11:03 PM
Heh, I admit that they could probably stop France for a couple of days if the French decided to invade. But even our depleted forces given basing and flyover rights would destroy Iran's military in 24 hours of shock and awe. They have 200 fighters, we have 2231 F-16s that were built, somehow I think they might be able to handle Iran's AF.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 11:07 AM
Somebody should have Jimmy go talk with Akmedidajob. I am sure ole Jimmy boy has fond memories of Iran.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 11:39 AM
As far as the region goes, I would have to say Turkey has the strongest military, followed closely behind by Iran. Never underestimate your enemy. Isn't that exactly what we did with the insurgency in Iraq? How many Iranian weapons have killed US soldiers in Iraq again?

The Mig-29's and F-14's which would be the most advanced fighters they have. No they don't spend 500b a year in defense like us, so no, they won't have F22's or F/A-18's(although they do have a couple f18's) they do spend a considerable amount of their budget in missile technology. Let's not forget that the most advanced weapons will not always bring victory. Training, motivation and competent leadership will. Example: WWII, superior german ground weapons vs. inferior US. ground weapons. It's not always about the kind of weapons you have, more about the man behind the controls of them

Having said that, in a conventional ground war, they don't stand a chance against us.

Logical
04-19-2008, 07:00 PM
As far as the region goes, I would have to say Turkey has the strongest military, followed closely behind by Iran. Never underestimate your enemy. Isn't that exactly what we did with the insurgency in Iraq? How many Iranian weapons have killed US soldiers in Iraq again?

The Mig-29's and F-14's which would be the most advanced fighters they have. No they don't spend 500b a year in defense like us, so no, they won't have F22's or F/A-18's(although they do have a couple f18's) they do spend a considerable amount of their budget in missile technology. Let's not forget that the most advanced weapons will not always bring victory. Training, motivation and competent leadership will. Example: WWII, superior german ground weapons vs. inferior US. ground weapons. It's not always about the kind of weapons you have, more about the man behind the controls of them

Having said that, in a conventional ground war, they don't stand a chance against us.I for damn sure don't want to test your conventional ground war theory, but I feel relatively safe in saying they stand no chance in an aerial battle.

Bowser
04-19-2008, 07:09 PM
How many Iranian weapons have killed US soldiers in Iraq again?



You mean how many American weapons fired by Iraqi insurgents.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 07:22 PM
I for damn sure don't want to test your conventional ground war theory, but I feel relatively safe in saying they stand no chance in an aerial battle.

Would you be surprised to learn that the most advanced weapons they have are in the air?

The bulk of their MBT's are T54/55's. The most advanced MBT they have is the T72 and old British Chieftains. We were knocking the turrets off of both of the T55's and T72's in DS1. The rounds coming from those were bouncing off the frontal armor on M1A1's. They do have about 40-50 old Cobra's, that aren't due for an upgrade for a few more years. Definately no match for our SuperCobra's or Apache's. I'll take our tactics over their old Soviet style. They don't have the number's needed to be successful with those tactics. They simply are no match for our ground tactics with Abram's, Brad's and Strikers coming at them.

I'm not counting on the F22's to be combat operational for a few more years, just because of our low # of them at this point. So they could, under conventional wisdom, knock some of our aircraft out of the sky. I not saying it would be a cakewalk either way. No combat ever is.

vailpass
04-19-2008, 07:23 PM
"Speaking at the parade, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was the most powerful nation in the world."

Bring it.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 07:23 PM
You mean how many American weapons fired by Iraqi insurgents.

You could say both. Who do you thinks makes the copper plates for the roadside bombs that have penetrated our vehicles? Iran has.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 07:25 PM
"Speaking at the parade, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was the most powerful nation in the world."

Bring it.

Modern grandiose Arab talk. Saddam did the same thing. Not even worth paying attention to.

vailpass
04-19-2008, 07:26 PM
Would you be surprised to learn that the most advanced weapons they have are in the air?

The bulk of their MBT's are T54/55's. The most advanced MBT they have is the T72 and old British Chieftains. We were knocking the turrets off of both of the T55's and T72's in DS1. The rounds coming from those were bouncing off the frontal armor on M1A1's. They do have about 40-50 old Cobra's, that aren't due for an upgrade for a few more years. Definately no match for our SuperCobra's or Apache's. I'll take our tactics over their old Soviet style. They don't have the number's needed to be successful with those tactics. They simply are no match for our ground tactics with Abram's, Brad's and Strikers coming at them.

I'm not counting on the F22's to be combat operational for a few more years, just because of our low # of them at this point. So they could, under conventional wisdom, knock some of our aircraft out of the sky. I not saying it would be a cakewalk either way. No combat ever is.

Do we get to deploy naval forces in an off-shore bombardment of their troops,artillery, missile, and C&C positions prior to placing boots on the ground?
If so I would posit they may experience a slight depletion in conventional combat capabilities.

penchief
04-19-2008, 07:27 PM
"Shock and Awe!" baby, "Shock and Awe."

All sabre-rattling is asinine, including George W. Bush's sabre-rattling.

That's what some of you righties don't get. You can't recognize when the pot's calling the kettle black.

We've been hugely hypocritical while making our own bed in the Middle East.

It's time to wake the **** up.

Douche Baggins
04-19-2008, 07:27 PM
n00bs

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 07:29 PM
Do we get to deploy naval forces in an off-shore bombardment of their troops,artillery, missile, and C&C positions prior to placing boots on the ground?
If so I would posit they may experience a slight depletion in conventional combat capabilities.


Our modern tactics always call for softening up the ground with aerial force.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 07:34 PM
They better question is who wins in a war with China. Us or China? That's the one that would scare the hell out of me.

ChiefaRoo
04-19-2008, 07:45 PM
They better question is who wins in a war with China. Us or China? That's the one that would scare the hell out of me.

War with China is extremely remote and we would win in a winner take all but the toll would be tremendous for both sides, therefore it won't happen as it is not in the interest of China, the US or the world for us to fight. You only fight when it is in your best interest, otherwise you use diplomacy.

To be clear. The US would never put large armored divisions on the ground in China. There is no reason ever for us to want to occupy them.

The US would stomp their Air Force/Navy with our AF and Navy. Hands down

If they went Nuclear (which they wouldn't do) China would get off a few ICBM's. We might shoot a couple down but would likely get hit in Hawaii, or the West Coast. In return we'd blanket them with Sub Nukes in about 10 minutes (if the President made a quick decision) . In fact, we could hit them with our nukes faster than it would take them to get their land nukes to the US because we'd be right off their coast. Their subs? We'd have to kill all of them before they could get to US. To my knowledge they don't have underwater nuke capability so they would have to surface first. If they do have capability I would guess our subs would still kill most if not all of their subs because we can hear them coming and we have better technology, crews and tactics. It's a lose, lose scenario and it will never happen.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 07:54 PM
War with China is extremely remote and we would win in a winner take all but the toll would be tremendous for both sides, therefore it won't happen as it is not in the interest of China, the US or the world for us to fight. You only fight when it is in your best interest, otherwise you use diplomacy.

To be clear. The US would never put large armored divisions on the ground in China. There is no reason ever for us to want to occupy them.

The US would stomp their Air Force/Navy with our AF and Navy. Hands down

If they went Nuclear (which they wouldn't do) China would get off a few ICBM's. We might shoot a couple down but would likely get hit in Hawaii, or the West Coast. In return we'd blanket them with Sub Nukes in about 10 minutes (if the President made a quick decision) . In fact, we could hit them with our nukes faster than it would take them to get their land nukes to the US because we'd be right off their coast. Their subs? We'd have to kill all of them before they could get to US. To my knowledge they don't have underwater nuke capability so they would have to surface first. If they do have capability I would guess our subs would still kill most if not all of their subs. It's a lose, lose scenario and it will never happen.

I know it is remote, actually wouldn't ever happen. It's simply hypothetical. It would be the toughest for our military out of every other country out there though. I not going to say whether we would win or lose. To be honest, I think the only option to end it would be going nuclear. And no, neither of us would do it. Both of us need each other too much. People look at me funny when I say Russia is still our biggest enemy. But IMO it's true

China really has modernized their military this past decade. Kinda how we did during the mid 80's on.

Logical
04-19-2008, 07:54 PM
Would you be surprised to learn that the most advanced weapons they have are in the air?

The bulk of their MBT's are T54/55's. The most advanced MBT they have is the T72 and old British Chieftains. We were knocking the turrets off of both of the T55's and T72's in DS1. The rounds coming from those were bouncing off the frontal armor on M1A1's. They do have about 40-50 old Cobra's, that aren't due for an upgrade for a few more years. Definately no match for our SuperCobra's or Apache's. I'll take our tactics over their old Soviet style. They don't have the number's needed to be successful with those tactics. They simply are no match for our ground tactics with Abram's, Brad's and Strikers coming at them.

I'm not counting on the F22's to be combat operational for a few more years, just because of our low # of them at this point. So they could, under conventional wisdom, knock some of our aircraft out of the sky. I not saying it would be a cakewalk either way. No combat ever is.
I think you misunderstood my post. I don't want us invading anyone else boots on the ground (I am not saying our ground forces could not win). Now back to aerial warfare. If you count all our fighters combined it is in the multi-thousand range (over 5000 fighters) not to mention all the bombers, drones that are weapons capable, radar surveillance platforms, tankers etc, against a 200 fighter plane AF that might be a mismatch no matter how many ground rocket forces they might have.

Fact is we should be working diplomacy first anyway.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 08:03 PM
I think you misunderstood my post. I don't want us invading anyone else boots on the ground (I am not saying our ground forces could not win). Now back to aerial warfare. If you count all our fighters combined it is in the multi-thousand range (over 5000 fighters) not to mention all the bombers, drones that are weapons capable, radar surveillance platforms, tankers etc, against a 200 fighter plane AF that might be a mismatch no matter how many ground rocket forces they might have.

Fact is we should be working diplomacy first anyway.

As a former ground troop. I don't want to invade anybody either. Nothing good comes of it.

Their Mig-29's are comparable to our F/A-18's. As a matter of a fact, in a conventional dogfight, I hate to say, but I would take the Mig. Thank goodness the days of dogfighting are over though.

No they don't have the numbers and would lose because of that aspect alone, but IMO they would put up a better fight in the air than most think they would.

Diplomacy is always the best option.

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 08:09 PM
I do however like that Iran still does fly the F14 and F4. Both are beautiful planes.

I grew up watching F4's, they bring back alot of childhood memories of being in awe of them.

Douche Baggins
04-19-2008, 08:22 PM
Doesn't Iran have a history of pumping up their weapons which then turn out to be total duds?

Saggysack
04-19-2008, 08:24 PM
Doesn't every country have a history of pumping up their weapons which then turn out to be total duds?

FYP

ChiefaRoo
04-19-2008, 09:49 PM
I know it is remote, actually wouldn't ever happen. It's simply hypothetical. It would be the toughest for our military out of every other country out there though. I not going to say whether we would win or lose. To be honest, I think the only option to end it would be going nuclear. And no, neither of us would do it. Both of us need each other too much. People look at me funny when I say Russia is still our biggest enemy. But IMO it's true

China really has modernized their military this past decade. Kinda how we did during the mid 80's on.

I've got nothing against the Chinese people or the development of their economy or military as long as they don't try to become expansionistic and put the heat on SE Asia, Japan or the Aussies. In fact, I kind of like them from my visits over there on business.

Eventhough I'm not really a buy the world a coke guy, I'm rooting for the US, the EU, China and even the Russians to make the world a better place. China can't be totally in the friendship circle until they become democratic though. I mean beating monks and shooting students in the square in Beijing is no way to build a great country. That being said their economic engine is good for the world and should make life better for their people and for others around the world. Russia, meh, I hope they propser as well but I'm not a big fan of their Govt. either or their civilian nuke sales.

It's a crazy world. I'd move to a more peaceful, respectful and decent place but Skip say's I can't come to Oklahoma..... HEH HO!! (Rim shot!) seriously, what a shithole.....

I'll be here all week, make sure you tip your waitress. LMAO

StcChief
04-20-2008, 08:09 AM
Imanutjob is just asking for it.

penchief
04-20-2008, 03:36 PM
Imanutjob is just asking for it.

He's no different to his country than Bush is to ours. Wake up and smell the coffee. Right wing nut jobs are the same no matter what country you live in. They all employ the same simple-minded tactics while the same simple-minded people in their respective countries always fall for the same bullshit antics.

Don't you have a simple-minded mirror you can look into?

StcChief
04-20-2008, 08:21 PM
He's no different to his country than Bush is to ours. Wake up and smell the coffee. Right wing nut jobs are the same no matter what country you live in. They all employ the same simple-minded tactics while the same simple-minded people in their respective countries always fall for the same bullshit antics.

Don't you have a simple-minded mirror you can look into?
come back when you grew up.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-20-2008, 08:51 PM
The truly lovely thing is that we are so anorexic, we couldn't even muster the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine if we wanted to.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 09:59 PM
He's no different to his country than Bush is to ours. Wake up and smell the coffee. Right wing nut jobs are the same no matter what country you live in. They all employ the same simple-minded tactics while the same simple-minded people in their respective countries always fall for the same bullshit antics.

Don't you have a simple-minded mirror you can look into?
:clap:


come back when you grew up.

Actually, he's right. He's a leader of a country. Bush is the leader of the country. Both purport to have the greatest, most powerful country in the world. One of them has invaded a country and cost his country trillions. One hasn't.

And yet so far "he's" crazy?

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2008, 10:50 PM
We are indeed a kind and patient nation. We allow President Ahmadinejad to continue to live. And I use the word "allow" with precise intention.

Saggysack
04-21-2008, 02:08 AM
Like to add this to my previous comments on inferior vs. superior weapons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24229068

A few quotes from the article...

At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.

"And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," says Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to."

Having been issued and used both the M16A2 AR and M4 carbine, I agree wholeheartedly that in a combat environment they are sorely lacking. I learned early on that the M16/M4 series of weapons is made for precision(accuracy) rather than combat reliabilty like Kalishnikovs. So what's the next weapon of choice for our armed forces? Considering that the platform of the M16 is 40yrs old and the complete XM line has been canceled, what are we looking at for our soldiers next upgrade? Maybe the G36 line, made by H&K, who developed the XM concept? Or how about the French Famas? Or do we go back to a weapon with heavier round considering the advancments made in body armor in the past decade? You also have to look at how much weight a larger caliber round will add to what a soldier has to carry. Adding anymore weight is never a welcome sight to anyone humping with a 110lb pack, more ammo than what combat load calls for, water, maybe a tripod, and whatever else their leadership wants them to carry.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards the FAMAS or G36 family with a larger caliber than what it has now(5.56mm) for general issue to French and German soldiers. Maybe 5.45 would be the way to go.

Saggysack
04-21-2008, 02:21 AM
And I don't want to hear any, bah, German or French design crap. We use alot of different weapons that have been developed in other countries... Like the main gun on a Abrams, German design. Or how about the SAW, Belguim design... and so on.

On a side note, say farewell to the F117. It is being retired from service today.

DenverChief
04-21-2008, 07:07 AM
As far as the region goes, I would have to say Turkey has the strongest military, followed closely behind by Iran.

I'm assuming you are not including Pakistan and India in the region?

Saggysack
04-21-2008, 07:27 AM
I'm assuming you are not including Pakistan and India in the region?

You would be right.

I look at Pakistan and India as being more in the region with Southeastern Asian countries than Arab, in otherwords, Southwest Asia like Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia...

StcChief
04-21-2008, 07:36 AM
We are indeed a kind and patient nation. We allow President Ahmadinejad to continue to live. And I use the word "allow" with precise intention.exactly, and privately Imanutjob knows that....

"walk softly and carry a big stick" /TR
http://www.unclemaxsays.com/business/BM_Neg_walksoftly.php

DenverChief
04-21-2008, 07:40 AM
You would be right.

I look at Pakistan and India as being more in the region with Southeastern Asian countries than Arab, in otherwords, Southwest Asia like Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia...

Ok :) I was just thinking they are pretty tough with #'s and decent technology as well...then you have China kinda hanging around ready to pretty much walk across any resistance to their land forces

Saggysack
04-21-2008, 09:38 AM
Ok :) I was just thinking they are pretty tough with #'s and decent technology as well...then you have China kinda hanging around ready to pretty much walk across any resistance to their land forces

China is the big boy in that region for the time being. I know the Russians would like to think they never lost their status, but they did. Unfortunately they will get that status back through their oil revenues.

I don't trust a Russian for nothing. Nothing would make them happier than to see our downfall.

Adept Havelock
04-21-2008, 09:43 AM
China is the big boy in that region for the time being. I know the Russians would like to think they never lost their status, but they did. Unfortunately they will get that status back through their oil revenues.


They may, but I suspect some of the hardliners in China might also be looking northward. If they ever make a grab at those Siberian resources, that could get very nasty, very quick.

Thankfully, Russia's strategic arsenal will probably keep that from happening.


I don't trust a Russian for nothing. Nothing would make them happier than to see our downfall.

I think I generally trust Russians, but not their Government. Especially former Komitet member Putin and his band of thugs. I think you're quite correct, though. They've always had a historical envy of the West, and getting thumped in the cold war probably isn't easy to take.

Damn good people to drink with, as long as you don't try to keep up.

Logical
04-21-2008, 01:52 PM
And I don't want to hear any, bah, German or French design crap. We use alot of different weapons that have been developed in other countries... Like the main gun on a Abrams, German design. Or how about the SAW, Belguim design... and so on.

On a side note, say farewell to the F117. It is being retired from service today.Wow that was a pretty poor investment.

Radar Chief
04-21-2008, 02:04 PM
Wow that was a pretty poor investment.

Building more than a few of them was a “poor investment”. The technology developed for it is what has helped to create the F-22, so from that stand point pursuing the technology wasn’t a bad idea.

penchief
04-21-2008, 02:19 PM
come back when you grew up.

Nice response, simple-minded one. Give me something I can work with. Why do you believe I need to grow up? Why do you believe that Bush is any better than Ahmajinedad? Has he shown himself to be better? Has he proven to be better? I don't think so.

In fact, George W. Bush started a ****ing war over lies. He intentionally created the illusion that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are Orwellian enemies while ignoring the fact that his best friend, Osama bin Laden, is the Mofo that attacked our asses.

I think you're the one that needs to grow up. Stop listening to WWF/Fox News and start thinking for yourself, grasshopper.