What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
2,967
-10
4,794
Country
United States
Location
United States
Issue with Iran is they have a long memory and they remember the China of 80’s and 90’s.

The purchase of F-7 is still in their minds.

Even though China has gone through rapid growth in military sector. Iran still views Chinese arms as inferior reverse engineering of Soviet weapons.

Thus I will be suprised if Iran purchases any Chinese weapon system unless there is significant ToT.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
360
2
674
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
I think PLAAF flankers Made a stop in Iran entourage to the Anatolian Eagles in 2011. I haven’t heard anything from Chinese channels since.
That is entirely possible, in theory. Impossible for me to say though, given I found no earlier uploading of this picture on the internet.
 

siegecrossbow

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 19, 2010
4,390
5
5,434
Country
China
Location
United States
That is entirely possible, in theory. Impossible for me to say though, given I found no earlier uploading of this picture on the internet.
Maybe the photographer held onto till now.

Either way the J-11A/Su-27SK is outdated as a fighter today. It retains a twist cassegrain radar, could only engage one enemy at a time, has limited air to ground capabilities, and has relatively poor avionics and targeting. I think Iran would go for more modern Flanker variants.
 

sahureka2

FULL MEMBER
Apr 23, 2016
782
0
2,360
Country
Italy
Location
Italy
Maybe the photographer held onto till now.

Either way the J-11A/Su-27SK is outdated as a fighter today. It retains a twist cassegrain radar, could only engage one enemy at a time, has limited air to ground capabilities, and has relatively poor avionics and targeting. I think Iran would go for more modern Flanker variants.
that's a two-seater, maybe it's a J-11BSH, but I tend to be a J-11BS and this version is equipped with more modern systems

J-11BS and J-11B
 

sahureka2

FULL MEMBER
Apr 23, 2016
782
0
2,360
Country
Italy
Location
Italy
The one in the tweet isn’t a J-11B. J-11B/BS has solid black nose cone whereas Su-27/J-11A has grey and white nose cone.
yes true the color of the nose cone is a feature that has escaped me, therefore it is a SU-27UB/UBK
 
Last edited:

sha ah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
599
0
746
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
I honestly don't believe that the US currently has the stomach to attack any nation that can actually retaliate in any meaningful way. That's just my personal opinion.

After 2003, the US had a large number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran's military was not nearly as formidable as it is today. Iran had a mere sliver, a very small fraction of the air defense hardware and missile capability that it has today. The US didn't do it back then. Would they do it now ? I highly doubt it, unless the US / Trump had no other choice. For example if Iran seriously attacked them first and inflicted severe casualties.

Could the US launch 1000 missiles in one night. Yes, it's possible but we haven't seen anything like that before and such an operation would require a large amount of time to setup. Iran would see the forces being built up. Would they stand idle by and do nothing ? Or perhaps Iran would wait for the US to strike first simply for political reasons ? To be able to say the USA started the war ? Hmmm interesting prospect. Not sure what the correct answer would be.

Earlier, when I said 200-300 in one shot, that was an average number. I believe I heard it on a youtube channel talking about a contingency plan of USA attacking Turkey. I think it was Binkovs ? Yes he's a damn puppet but he does do some serious analysis and research as well, that can't be denied.

Realistically it's just an average number. I mean another thing to consider is this. After the assets launch their missiles, they're in a sense possibly vulnerable after that right ? I mean in theory they've launched missiles, so they could then be identified and targeted by a formidable enemy after that right ?

You always want to keep some reserves don't you ? In case let's say the enemy identifies and retaliates ? I mean I don't see the US military unloading everything in one shot. Think about it, what's more efficient, 1000 at once and then another week or more before another attack, considering maintenance and re acquisition of weapons, in the meantime some of your assets are now more vulnerable ?, Or would it be better to just have a constant flow of 200 every night, Constant pressure ? and constant protection for your assets ? The ability to retaliate or suddenly identify and destroy /40/60/80 targets at any given point ?

Yes undoubtedly Russian equipment has been destroyed but every weapon system has weaknesses and limitations. We saw what Iran / Houthis was able to do to Aramco that one night and the Patriots didn't even shoot down one single target.

In the case of Israel, they're using very advanced modern equipment against mostly older Soviet era gear in Syria. However there has never been a successful attack on a base housing Russian troops, defended by a Russian S-300 / S-400 battery. I believe some Turkish proxy groups or even Turkey tried to launch some assets at Hmeimim air base but allegedly the Russians shot it down.

With Turkey, they saturate the air with their drones. Yes they did destroy 10+ export Pantsir systems but they lost 20+ of their drones in the process. So was the Russian equipment useless or was it just a numbers game ?

If a SAM system has 4 missiles and you launch 8 cruise missiles at the system, we all know what the end result will be.

Of course the Pantsir is a medium range SAM. The ones in Libya were export version I might add, being operated by inexperienced people. If you had a multilayered system, so let's say Pantsirs, Tors, BUK, S-300, S-400 all working together and operated by experienced professionals, then it's a whole different ball game.

Of course let's also remember that afterwards, 3 Turkish HAWK SAM batteries were later destroyed allegedly by Egyptian / UAE Rafales at Watiya airbase. After that Turkey suddenly lost interest in expanding to Sirte.

Does that mean the HAWK is a useless system ? Of course not.

At the end of the day, it all depends on a wide range of particular circumstances and variables. Usually you don't find the truth in extremes, but for the most part somewhere in between, in the gray area.


Really? You based on how many were launched during Gulf War 1? So less than 300 were launched during that conflict? Okay how about during 2003 Invasion of Iraq when more than 800 missiles were launched? Or back during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 more than 400 were launched? Come on you got to do better than that. That's like saying U.S. launched a few aircraft in this so and so conflict so that must mean they can only launch a dozen aircraft. Of course the Russians would like to deny and claim they shot down this many considering in the past how much Russian equipment has been destroyed in Libya and Syria either by Israel and Turkey and so on. If there was a conflict with someone like Iran or China with that many targets, you will see something like 1000 or more being launched. All this with the SSGNs, and LRASMs that can be launched on smaller aircraft, etc. Yeah the first casualty would be the truth. Use the Iranian civilian plane being shot down and Iran saying they had nothing to do with it and admitted later they did as an example. I believe they try to sugar coat it by saying American EW was involved. Think its true?
Really? You based on how many were launched during Gulf War 1? So less than 300 were launched during that conflict? Okay how about during 2003 Invasion of Iraq when more than 800 missiles were launched? Or back during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 more than 400 were launched? Come on you got to do better than that. That's like saying U.S. launched a few aircraft in this so and so conflict so that must mean they can only launch a dozen aircraft. Of course the Russians would like to deny and claim they shot down this many considering in the past how much Russian equipment has been destroyed in Libya and Syria either by Israel and Turkey and so on. If there was a conflict with someone like Iran or China with that many targets, you will see something like 1000 or more being launched. All this with the SSGNs, and LRASMs that can be launched on smaller aircraft, etc. Yeah the first casualty would be the truth. Use the Iranian civilian plane being shot down and Iran saying they had nothing to do with it and admitted later they did as an example. I believe they try to sugar coat it by saying American EW was involved. Think its true?
 
Last edited:

OldTwilight

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2016
2,525
-1
3,482
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Could the US launch 1000 missiles in one night. Yes, it's possible but we haven't seen anything like that before and such an operation would require a large amount of time to setup. Iran would see the forces being built up. Would they stand idle by and do nothing ? Or perhaps Iran would wait for the US to strike first simply for political reasons ? To be able to say the USA started the war ? Hmmm interesting prospect. Not sure what the correct answer would be.
Because Khamenei is ruling Iran right know which set these rule for us to follow :
  • Nukes are Haram and we won't even search on nuclear weapon in any circumstance ( which mean others are free to nuke us )
  • We wont make first move in war against USA ( so USA can be assure that even if publicly saying that they want attack Iran , then Iranian arm force is not allow to attack their position and assets till their first wave of attack hit Iranian target )
 

WudangMaster

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Apr 17, 2014
94
0
125
Country
United States
Location
United States
Because Khamenei is ruling Iran right know which set these rule for us to follow :
  • Nukes are Haram and we won't even search on nuclear weapon in any circumstance ( which mean others are free to nuke us )
  • We wont make first move in war against USA ( so USA can be assure that even if publicly saying that they want attack Iran , then Iranian arm force is not allow to attack their position and assets till their first wave of attack hit Iranian target )
Is it possible this fatwa is really taqiyya and hopefully they really building a weapon or at least the capability to assemble one quickly?
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
360
2
674
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
We wont make first move in war against USA ( so USA can be assure that even if publicly saying that they want attack Iran , then Iranian arm force is not allow to attack their position and assets till their first wave of attack hit Iranian target )
I doubt the Supreme Leader's guideline implies passivity in such a scenario. What he means is that Iran will not be the one opting for war or initiating military aggression. If it becomes unmistakenly clear that the US will launch an aggression on Iran however, then Iran may very well strike their offensive assets beforehand. IRGC officers have suggested as much in interviews.

I'd recommend to stay as precise as possible with semantics, for it helps to avoid misinterpretations.
 

OldTwilight

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2016
2,525
-1
3,482
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
I doubt the Supreme Leader's guideline implies passivity in such a scenario. What he means is that Iran will not be the one opting for war or initiating military aggression. If it becomes unmistakenly clear that the US will launch an aggression on Iran however, then Iran may very well strike their offensive assets beforehand. IRGC officers have suggested as much in interviews.

I'd recommend to stay as precise as possible with semantics, for it helps to avoid misinterpretations.
well , you are sayin your interpterion ... I'm just quoting what he directly said ... He wasn't aggressive when he was young , old age make people more passive ... people tend to forget how old he is ...
 

925boy

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2016
3,923
-25
4,139
Country
United States
Location
United States
I honestly don't believe that the US currently has the stomach to attack any nation that can actually retaliate in any meaningful way. That's just my personal opinion.

After 2003, the US had a large number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran's military was not nearly as formidable as it is today. Iran had a mere sliver, a very small fraction of the air defense hardware and missile capability that it has today. The US didn't do it back then. Would they do it now ? I highly doubt it, unless the US / Trump had no other choice. For example if Iran seriously attacked them first and inflicted severe casualties.

Could the US launch 1000 missiles in one night. Yes, it's possible but we haven't seen anything like that before and such an operation would require a large amount of time to setup. Iran would see the forces being built up. Would they stand idle by and do nothing ? Or perhaps Iran would wait for the US to strike first simply for political reasons ? To be able to say the USA started the war ? Hmmm interesting prospect. Not sure what the correct answer would be.

Earlier, when I said 200-300 in one shot, that was an average number. I believe I heard it on a youtube channel talking about a contingency plan of USA attacking Turkey. I think it was Binkovs ? Yes he's a damn puppet but he does do some serious analysis and research as well, that can't be denied.

Realistically it's just an average number. I mean another thing to consider is this. After the assets launch their missiles, they're in a sense possibly vulnerable after that right ? I mean in theory they've launched missiles, so they could then be identified and targeted by a formidable enemy after that right ?

You always want to keep some reserves don't you ? In case let's say the enemy identifies and retaliates ? I mean I don't see the US military unloading everything in one shot. Think about it, what's more efficient, 1000 at once and then another week or more before another attack, considering maintenance and re acquisition of weapons, in the meantime some of your assets are now more vulnerable ?, Or would it be better to just have a constant flow of 200 every night, Constant pressure ? and constant protection for your assets ? The ability to retaliate or suddenly identify and destroy /40/60/80 targets at any given point ?

Yes undoubtedly Russian equipment has been destroyed but every weapon system has weaknesses and limitations. We saw what Iran / Houthis was able to do to Aramco that one night and the Patriots didn't even shoot down one single target.

In the case of Israel, they're using very advanced modern equipment against mostly older Soviet era gear in Syria. However there has never been a successful attack on a base housing Russian troops, defended by a Russian S-300 / S-400 battery. I believe some Turkish proxy groups or even Turkey tried to launch some assets at Hmeimim air base but allegedly the Russians shot it down.

With Turkey, they saturate the air with their drones. Yes they did destroy 10+ export Pantsir systems but they lost 20+ of their drones in the process. So was the Russian equipment useless or was it just a numbers game ?

If a SAM system has 4 missiles and you launch 8 cruise missiles at the system, we all know what the end result will be.

Of course the Pantsir is a medium range SAM. The ones in Libya were export version I might add, being operated by inexperienced people. If you had a multilayered system, so let's say Pantsirs, Tors, BUK, S-300, S-400 all working together and operated by experienced professionals, then it's a whole different ball game.

Of course let's also remember that afterwards, 3 Turkish HAWK SAM batteries were later destroyed allegedly by Egyptian / UAE Rafales at Watiya airbase. After that Turkey suddenly lost interest in expanding to Sirte.

Does that mean the HAWK is a useless system ? Of course not.

At the end of the day, it all depends on a wide range of particular circumstances and variables. Usually you don't find the truth in extremes, but for the most part somewhere in between, in the gray area.
Wow, i agree 100% with your analysis , you obviously have high situational awareness of whats happening in the MIddle east(and many cant, wont ,dont want to see it, which is not our problem).
Good job and thanks!!

Azerbaijan should not make the mistake of testing Iran, because Iran is probably also(like CHina is) looking for a good dummy to "test"weapons on..
 

Oldman1

SENIOR MEMBER
May 28, 2011
7,391
1
3,484
Country
United States
Location
United States
I honestly don't believe that the US currently has the stomach to attack any nation that can actually retaliate in any meaningful way. That's just my personal opinion.

After 2003, the US had a large number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran's military was not nearly as formidable as it is today. Iran had a mere sliver, a very small fraction of the air defense hardware and missile capability that it has today. The US didn't do it back then. Would they do it now ? I highly doubt it, unless the US / Trump had no other choice. For example if Iran seriously attacked them first and inflicted severe casualties.
Yeah Iran should have kept attacking. Killing thousands of American troops should have been enough to force Trump to pull troops out. Why didn't you? Gave them a concussion instead. Should have giving Trump an excuse to pull troops out, not start a war eh? I mean we killed your general, the world would have backed you up.

Could the US launch 1000 missiles in one night. Yes, it's possible but we haven't seen anything like that before and such an operation would require a large amount of time to setup. Iran would see the forces being built up. Would they stand idle by and do nothing ? Or perhaps Iran would wait for the US to strike first simply for political reasons ? To be able to say the USA started the war ? Hmmm interesting prospect. Not sure what the correct answer would be.
Of course you haven't see anything like it. Nobody saw 400 missiles launched or 800 missiles launched so who expect 1000? You could see a build up but you don't see it til its too late. Think about the submarines that can carry more than 150 cruise missiles underwater. Or the other submarines that can at least carry a dozen each.

Earlier, when I said 200-300 in one shot, that was an average number. I believe I heard it on a youtube channel talking about a contingency plan of USA attacking Turkey. I think it was Binkovs ? Yes he's a damn puppet but he does do some serious analysis and research as well, that can't be denied.

Realistically it's just an average number. I mean another thing to consider is this. After the assets launch their missiles, they're in a sense possibly vulnerable after that right ? I mean in theory they've launched missiles, so they could then be identified and targeted by a formidable enemy after that right ?
If a B-52 or B-1 launches cruise missiles from lets say 500km away, are you going to send jet fighters after it? Don't expect any escorts or patrols nearby? And smaller fighter jets launched their own cruise missiles, they still have their air to air missiles, so they are not vulnerable at all.

You always want to keep some reserves don't you ? In case let's say the enemy identifies and retaliates ? I mean I don't see the US military unloading everything in one shot. Think about it, what's more efficient, 1000 at once and then another week or more before another attack, considering maintenance and re acquisition of weapons, in the meantime some of your assets are now more vulnerable ?, Or would it be better to just have a constant flow of 200 every night, Constant pressure ? and constant protection for your assets ? The ability to retaliate or suddenly identify and destroy /40/60/80 targets at any given point ?
They will unload as much as their platforms allowed. For example like the SSGN can only launch 150 missiles, they have to go back to reload it. And they will always rotate as well because not every fleet from around the world will congregate in one place.

Yes undoubtedly Russian equipment has been destroyed but every weapon system has weaknesses and limitations. We saw what Iran / Houthis was able to do to Aramco that one night and the Patriots didn't even shoot down one single target.

In the case of Israel, they're using very advanced modern equipment against mostly older Soviet era gear in Syria. However there has never been a successful attack on a base housing Russian troops, defended by a Russian S-300 / S-400 battery. I believe some Turkish proxy groups or even Turkey tried to launch some assets at Hmeimim air base but allegedly the Russians shot it down.
I'm sure Russia and Israel have an understanding, but the Syrians probably still trying to shoot the Israelis down, so far I think Syria accidentally shot down their Russian ally aircraft by accident. But thats an accident but did prove it can shoot aircraft down.

With Turkey, they saturate the air with their drones. Yes they did destroy 10+ export Pantsir systems but they lost 20+ of their drones in the process. So was the Russian equipment useless or was it just a numbers game ?


If a SAM system has 4 missiles and you launch 8 cruise missiles at the system, we all know what the end result will be.
And bombs as well. Numbers game like you said.

Of course the Pantsir is a medium range SAM. The ones in Libya were export version I might add, being operated by inexperienced people. If you had a multilayered system, so let's say Pantsirs, Tors, BUK, S-300, S-400 all working together and operated by experienced professionals, then it's a whole different ball game.

Of course let's also remember that afterwards, 3 Turkish HAWK SAM batteries were later destroyed allegedly by Egyptian / UAE Rafales at Watiya airbase. After that Turkey suddenly lost interest in expanding to Sirte.

Does that mean the HAWK is a useless system ? Of course not.

At the end of the day, it all depends on a wide range of particular circumstances and variables. Usually you don't find the truth in extremes, but for the most part somewhere in between, in the gray area.
Sure you can put a multilayered system, but they all can be taken out. The USAF has trained many decades for this, even practicing against Russian made systems known to be what the world considered formidable.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 1, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom