You are straw-manning me a little.
I didn't say the U.S should abandon their airforce in favor for BMs, point is: They have no real BMs or hypersonic missiles at all, at this moment, and working to get them.
The U.S has realized that ranges of typical tacair like F/A-18 or even F-35 are not sufficient to counter advanced enemies (of which there are only a handfull in the world).
They will go for a large B-21 fleet, with strategic range and hypersonic weapons ( more or less BM) that can penetrate the target at extended ranges.
Tacair and drones are only brought in if the key enemy capabilities are degraded. Then they can be used as tactical bombtrucks as you described
Not straw manning you azeezam we are just talking.....
The U.S. may not view BM as a viable conventional solution due to their vast requirements but that doesn't mean they don't have them.
And how we categorize Hypersonic is much different than they way they categories them. And you know that!
Your saying hitting a moving target on the ground from 2000km is harder than hitting airborne target at that range? Come on now!!!
No one talks about transport aircrafts here. Its about the old fashioned (2000's) U.S dream of F-35 striking Natanz deep inside Iran via stealth, SDB and other fancy things.
No. This wont work against a country like Iran anymore.
They need more potent weapons, like B-52 delivered hypersonic missiles, or the Pershing-2 if they still had it.
I very much doubt the U.S. was ever under the impression that they could use F-35's as the main delivery system to hit Natanz. No doubt F-35's would be used in the operation and used against Iranian IADS but not as the main payload delivery system for hitting Natanz it's self.
A Pershing2 armed with a conventional payload would not be able to penetrate Natanz either.
And if the U.S. didn't put much value in BM's they wouldn't be using as the main payload delivery system for their nuclear weapons.
Which aircraft can go and strike 2000-3000km range BM's for which you would need tacair to counter it?
Its all about the ranges.
Simply put, if the US had vast BM stationed in Diego Garcia instead of a vast Air Power would Iran allow them to have so many bases around Iran?
Would we stand by and let their ships to come and go and deploy so many weapons as they please?
I'm not questioning the value of BM's but the fact is it's not ether or! You can not create a unidimensional military and expect your enemy to idly sit by and not create a counter to that one capability!
If you create a military that is utterly incapable of countering areal targets beyond 200km what do you think your enemy is going to do? Of course they will develop capabilities around your weaknesses to try to take away any advantages you many have
Again, I didn't say Iran should completely abandon its airforce. Just the vast priority is with the missile forces.
It's not either or!
And the development of a capable Air Force isn't simply about Fighter jets!
Look at the state of Iranian civil aviation! Look at the age of our Fighters and Transport aircraft!
How much longer do you think this will last?
So no! Priority can not be with Missiles alone
Want to see those large soft assets survive and take off from their homebase after it received a salvo of 2500km range hypersonic missiles fired at safe distance from B-52.
2-3 AEW with 100 long range Su-57, for offensive force projection against typical low capability neighbors? That would be good, but not more.
No! I would like to see those soft assets become Airborne &/or moved before shots are fired! Just like how US moved most of it's assets as soon as they felt an Iranian missile attack was coming. Which is why having a large sensor network is vital to the security of any country
As for Su-57's I honestly believe Iran is technologically advanced enough that given sufficient funding we can produce a fighter that would be more than sufficient.
At the rate the Russians are producing Su-57's it would take them 2 decades before they can transfer 100 Su-57s to Iran. If properly funded we can easily produce a viable fighter of our own within that timeframe
Production of a viable fighter isn't just about a fighter or just about an Airforce!
Fact is lack of budget in the Military clearly shows that our leadership still doesn't clearly understand the value and implications of a properly funded defense industry and it's effects on various civilian industries.
Such a capability is good to have and should be there, The vast majority of resources should be put in missiles, then drones and then tacair.
So while in 1980, tacair made up 100% of high-end capability, 20% are whats good today.
So we agree in principle!
Kelooyee agheh hesab koneem if before 60%-70% of your budget for new weapons and equipment acquisitions went to the Air Force today under normal circumstances that should be divided between 20% manned fixed winged Aircraft from transport to fighters 20% Missiles from SLV to LACM & Rockets 15%Navy & Coastal Defense 15% Cyber warfare, AI, robotics & unmanned systems UAV/UCAV/UGV 10% IADS 10% Infantry equipment from coms to ISW 5% Helo's 5% Ground Vehicles, Equipment & Artillery
Kilooiii! For weapons, parts and equipment acquisitions NOT military budget!
Now under normal circumstances that would absolutely be ideal, however, when you have failed to properly acquire new aircrafts over decades on end then a smart leadership should have built up the budget needed to make up for it!
And by no means am i advocating the purchase of foreign Aircraft! Simply that they invest properly in the infrastructure needed to make up for years of neglect. And purchasing fighters is not the answer!
If the French where able to produce an Aircraft like the Mirage IV in the late 60's then the idea that Iran is technologically incapable of building something far superior today is nothing but a sad excuse. Iran's requirements for manned Aircrafts are not going away
www.timesofisrael.com
www.jpost.com
fas.org
