'Iranian Attack Jets Deployed' To Help Iraq Fight ISIS

[Ostad]

Russia to provide additional Su-25 fighters to Iraq by September

Su-25
5 from Russia.
3 from Iran
5-10 from Russia, coming in September.
-----------------------------------------------------
Iraq will have ~15 Su-25s in 2 months.

2014 Northern Iraq offensive[edit]
Main article:2014 Northern Iraq offensive
On 29 June 2014, it was reported that Iraq claimed to have received the first batch ofsecond handSu-25s ordered from Russia in order to fight Sunni rebels of theIslamic State in Iraq and the Levant. An Iraqi defence ministry source claimed the aircraft would be in service "within three to four days", despite the fact that the Iraqis require technical help and parts to make them operational, and the fact that the Russian made aircraft are incompatible with the Iraqi Air force's inventory of American madeHellfire missiles.[49][50]TheIslamic Republic of Iran Air Force delivered seven Su-25s on 1 July 2014, the majority of which were ex-Iraqi aircraft from the Gulf War.[51]

 

[Penguin]

They don't need bombers, what they need is some Close Air Support, which can be provided by aircraft like A-10 or Su-25
ISIS does not have any heavy structures which requires to be heavily bombed, only support in battles is needed

During operation desrt storm and the post 2001 military actions in afghanistan and Iraq American B-52s and B-1s were employed in mostly tactical rather than strategic roles. The B-52 contributed in 2001 (Afghanistan/Southwest Asia), providing the ability to loiter high above the battlefield and provide Close Air Support (CAS) through the use of precision guided munitions, a mission which previously would have been restricted to fighter and ground attack aircraft. B-52 has the capacity to loiter for extended periods over (or even well outside) the battlefield, and deliver precision standoff and direct fire munitions. It has been a valuable asset in supporting ground operations.Weapons upgrades include the 1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade (IWBU), which gives a 66 percent increase in carriage capability using a digital interface and rotary launcher to increase the weapons payload. The 1760 IWBU allows precision-guided weapons to be deployed from inside the weapons bay, increasing the number of guided weapons a B-52 can carry and reducing the need for guided bombs to be carried externally on wing hardpoints. The first phase will allow a B-52 to carry 24 500-pound JDAMs or 20 2,000-pound JDAMs, with later phases accommodating the JASSM and MALD family of missiles. The B-1 has deployed an array of conventional weapons in war zones, most notably the GBU-31, 2,000 pounds (910 kg) JDAM. B-1s have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2008 B-1s have been used there in an "armed overwatch" role. They loiter over the region maintaining surveillance, ready to deliver guided bombs in support of ground troops if contacted. 2008, a B-1B flew the first Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod equipped combat sortie where the crew successfully targeted enemy ground forces and dropped a GBU-38 guided bomb in Afghanistan

They have multirole fighters, which can act as bombers as well. But, if you mean strategic bomber, Iran has not anything of this type. BTW, why would you need a bomber or strategic bomber to fight ISIS? CAS is the most important needed job

I didn't suggest the use of heavy bombers, therefor I need not make the argument.

 

[rmi5]

During operation desrt storm and the post 2001 military actions in afghanistan and Iraq American B-52s and B-1s were employed in mostly tactical rather than strategic roles. The B-52 contributed in 2001 (Afghanistan/Southwest Asia), providing the ability to loiter high above the battlefield and provide Close Air Support (CAS) through the use of precision guided munitions, a mission which previously would have been restricted to fighter and ground attack aircraft. B-52 has the capacity to loiter for extended periods over (or even well outside) the battlefield, and deliver precision standoff and direct fire munitions. It has been a valuable asset in supporting ground operations.Weapons upgrades include the 1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade (IWBU), which gives a 66 percent increase in carriage capability using a digital interface and rotary launcher to increase the weapons payload. The 1760 IWBU allows precision-guided weapons to be deployed from inside the weapons bay, increasing the number of guided weapons a B-52 can carry and reducing the need for guided bombs to be carried externally on wing hardpoints. The first phase will allow a B-52 to carry 24 500-pound JDAMs or 20 2,000-pound JDAMs, with later phases accommodating the JASSM and MALD family of missiles. The B-1 has deployed an array of conventional weapons in war zones, most notably the GBU-31, 2,000 pounds (910 kg) JDAM. B-1s have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2008 B-1s have been used there in an "armed overwatch" role. They loiter over the region maintaining surveillance, ready to deliver guided bombs in support of ground troops if contacted. 2008, a B-1B flew the first Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod equipped combat sortie where the crew successfully targeted enemy ground forces and dropped a GBU-38 guided bomb in Afghanistan


I didn't suggest the use of heavy bombers, therefor I need not make the argument.

First, No bombers are needed to fight ISIS. Each military equipment, is built to achieve some goals. CAS, or air to air combat , or some other goals.. you need to always keep it mind.
Bombers are useless in this case, since ISIS is a partisan group, and not a standing army. They don't have any important buildings, or strategic factories, or ... either. So, bombers, or strategic bombers are totally useless. What you are saying is using strategic bombers to provide CAS, while in fact, providing CAS against ISIS does not need and cannot be well provided by strategic bombers in this case since ISIS is not a classic army. So, even this huge payload of bombs is also useless. In this case, you need to have an attacker with a big gun, a good loiter, which gets close to ground, and pilot can recognize ISIS forces. ISIS is a very fast moving military group which sometimes shelters among civilian houses, or ... there are many technical difficulties in this case. so, pilot needs to get close to ground to clearly see everything, otherwise, you would kill bunch of civilians instead of ISIS. Now, by this job description, we can see that A-10 is perfect for this job, since it gets close to ground, has an amazing big gun, very good loiter and is very strong against ground fires of ISIS partisans. Iran does not have A-10, so the next best option would be Su-25.

 

[1000]

7 SU-25

Video shows 3 Su-25
can't trust anything but video or the MoD's webpage, news is spreading false stuff

 

[Penguin]

Bombers are useless in this case, since ISIS is a partisan group, and not a standing army. They don't have any important buildings, or strategic factories, or ... either

First, No bombers are needed to fight ISIS. Each military equipment, is built to achieve some goals. CAS, or air to air combat , or some other goals.. you need to always keep it mind.
Bombers are useless in this case, since ISIS is a partisan group, and not a standing army. They don't have any important buildings, or strategic factories, or ... either. So, bombers, or strategic bombers are totally useless. What you are saying is using strategic bombers to provide CAS, while in fact, providing CAS against ISIS does not need and cannot be well provided by strategic bombers in this case since ISIS is not a classic army. So, even this huge payload of bombs is also useless. In this case, you need to have an attacker with a big gun, a good loiter, which gets close to ground, and pilot can recognize ISIS forces. ISIS is a very fast moving military group which sometimes shelters among civilian houses, or ... there are many technical difficulties in this case. so, pilot needs to get close to ground to clearly see everything, otherwise, you would kill bunch of civilians instead of ISIS. Now, by this job description, we can see that A-10 is perfect for this job, since it gets close to ground, has an amazing big gun, very good loiter and is very strong against ground fires of ISIS partisans. Iran does not have A-10, so the next best option would be Su-25.

It is not the size and number of bombs perse, but also the endurance, loiter time that matters. Strategic bombers can now provide tactical support i.e. in direct support of ground troops using PGM. Ground troops will designate the target (which they can do better than any pilot) They can stick around whereas tactical aircraft would have to leave the scene to go and refuel. I'm not making this up: it is and has been the evolving use of these aircraft against 'irregular forces' in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[rmi5]

It is not the size and number of bombs perse, but also the endurance, loiter time that matters. Strategic bombers can now provide tactical support i.e. in direct support of ground troops using PGM. Ground troops will designate the target (which they can do better than any pilot) They can stick around whereas tactical aircraft would have to leave the scene to go and refuel. I'm not making this up: it is and has been the evolving use of these aircraft against 'irregular forces' in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

But, the point is how you want to send your ground troops there? BTW, using a gun from lower altitude is more cheaper, accurate, and has less civilians casualties than using strategic bombers for this job.

 

[Penguin]

But, the point is how you want to send your ground troops there? BTW, using a gun from lower altitude is more cheaper, accurate, and has less civilians casualties than using strategic bombers for this job.

If you insist on underestimating the usefullness of the strategic bomber, be my guest. Fact is USAF has increased such use of B52 and B1. And is retiring A-10.

 

[rmi5]

If you insist on underestimating the usefullness of the strategic bomber, be my guest. Fact is USAF has increased such use of B52 and B1.

IMHO, I am mostly in favor of using A-10 for this job, and I have solid proofs for it, as I represented, and I dislike the policy of retiring cheaper and capable A-10, in favor of other super expensive fighter/bombers projects, and claiming that they can replace A-10 in her defined specific jobs(CAS), while, in reality, they cannot really replace A-10 role.

 

[1000]

What happened yesterday.

SU-25 engages ISIS in the city Toz Khormatu where mainly Iraq's shia turkmen live ( a target for IS) kurdish troops close to the city engaged the SU-25. SU-25 responded to the attack and casualties have been reported on the kurdish side.

kurdish troops killed Iraqi forces in Kerkuk as well when they refused to leave the city some weeks ago.

 

[KingMamba]

What happened yesterday.

SU-25 engages ISIS in the city Toz Khormatu where mainly Iraq's shia turkmen live ( a target for IS) kurdish troops close to the city engaged the SU-25. SU-25 responded to the attack and casualties have been reported on the kurdish side.

kurdish troops killed Iraqi forces in Kerkuk as well when they refused to leave the city some weeks ago.

Iraqi troops should focus on ISIS leave the Peshmerga be they are not a threat.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

First, No bombers are needed to fight ISIS. Each military equipment, is built to achieve some goals. CAS, or air to air combat , or some other goals.. you need to always keep it mind.
Bombers are useless in this case, since ISIS is a partisan group, and not a standing army. They don't have any important buildings, or strategic factories, or ... either. So, bombers, or strategic bombers are totally useless. What you are saying is using strategic bombers to provide CAS, while in fact, providing CAS against ISIS does not need and cannot be well provided by strategic bombers in this case since ISIS is not a classic army. So, even this huge payload of bombs is also useless. In this case, you need to have an attacker with a big gun, a good loiter, which gets close to ground, and pilot can recognize ISIS forces. ISIS is a very fast moving military group which sometimes shelters among civilian houses, or ... there are many technical difficulties in this case. so, pilot needs to get close to ground to clearly see everything, otherwise, you would kill bunch of civilians instead of ISIS. Now, by this job description, we can see that A-10 is perfect for this job, since it gets close to ground, has an amazing big gun, very good loiter and is very strong against ground fires of ISIS partisans. Iran does not have A-10, so the next best option would be Su-25.

CAS aicraft can be shot down. You need a long loitering high altitude heavy bomber combined with small drones that perform targeting, possibly with help from ground troops.

 

[Penguin]

But, the point is how you want to send your ground troops there? BTW, using a gun from lower altitude is more cheaper, accurate, and has less civilians casualties than using strategic bombers for this job.

You KNOW what is really funny, in this particular thread the argument is for low level jets like A-10, but then in the next thread over, it is precisely opposite: oh su-25 is SO vulnarable at low level to MANPADS, must use high level jets with stand-off weapons.....

As Iran's Military Enters Iraq, Here's A Look At What They Have In Their Arsenal | Page 8

I'm not underestimating the usefullness neither of A-10, Su-25 nor of B-52/B1/ tU-22m/tU160


In answer to your post, you can assume the troops are on the ground in place. They will be designating. Be they regular troops or special forces, or recce helicopters peeking over a hill, or blimps with ELOP or Radar surveillance gear. Or simply a soldier with a mark 1 eye ball and a radio.

 

[rmi5]

You KNOW what is really funny, in this particular thread the argument is for low level jets like A-10, but then in the next thread over, it is precisely opposite: oh su-25 is SO vulnarable at low level to MANPADS, must use high level jets with stand-off weapons.....

As Iran's Military Enters Iraq, Here's A Look At What They Have In Their Arsenal | Page 8

I'm not underestimating the usefullness neither of A-10, Su-25 nor of B-52/B1/ tU-22m/tU160


In answer to your post, you can assume the troops are on the ground in place. They will be designating. Be they regular troops or special forces, or recce helicopters peeking over a hill, or blimps with ELOP or Radar surveillance gear. Or simply a soldier with a mark 1 eye ball and a radio.

Our brother, @Informant, is simply wrong in the other thread. Basically, an aircraft like A-10 or Su-25 is designed for being hit and not to be shut down. it was obvious for designers that an aircraft like A-10 would be targeted by ground troops, but it is designed in a way, which make it almost invulnerable against them. I can post many pictures, in which A-10 is severely hit by ground troops and has survived. something like this photo:

people usually know air superiority fighters, and mistakenly think that bombers and attackers are designed for the same purposes or with the same design philosophy and goals.
For example, in A-10, they have moved the engine in a distance from fuselage, and implemented fuel tanks in a way that the attacker would not be easily get fired by any shootings from ground troops, ...

 

[forcetrip]

Our brother, @Informant, is simply wrong in the other thread. Basically, an aircraft like A-10 or Su-25 is designed for being hit and not to be shut down. it was obvious for designers that an aircraft like A-10 would be targeted by ground troops, but it is designed in a way, which make it almost invulnerable against them. I can post many pictures, in which A-10 is severely hit by ground troops and has survived. something like this photo:

people usually know air superiority fighters, and mistakenly think that bombers and attackers are designed for the same purposes or with the same design philosophy and goals.
For example, in A-10, they have moved the engine in a distance from fuselage, and implemented fuel tanks in a way that the attacker would not be easily get fired by any shootings from ground troops, ...

Once you get the red light blaring inside the cockpit you have lost the plot from being a hunter to being the hunted. I would not call the above picture of a plane that is invulnerable. Its more like Lucky to have limped back to base. Why would someone with the resources opt to put its pilots in harms way when there is obviously no need to. They have the money and they want to use it. A10's were an amazing platform. Till the 1990's.

 

[Penguin]

. A10's were an amazing platform. Till the 1990's.

You mean to say before the 1990s the A10s didn't face SA-6/7/8/9/13 etc plus Shilka's, Tunguska? Or that those were no good (many still in use today). Plus, you realize the A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991? It destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of that war ... moved on Bosnia-Herzegowina 1994-5, Serbia 1995 and 1999. A-10s did not take part in the initial stages of US going in to Afghanistan in 2001 but flew there from 2002 on. The US attack on Iraq that began on 20 March 2003 involved sixty OA-10/A-10 aircraft in the early combat there. Total combat losses ... some 7 in Desert Storm, 1 in Iraqi Freedom ( = shot down in combat or lost as a result of combat inflicted damage.)

Why USAF hates A-10 and why it can’t be replaced « Defense Issues