U.S. Will Not Let Iran Buy Arms When U.N. Embargo Ends: Pompeo

[zartosht]

i do not know why this discussion is going this direction but i need to remind you right now we have a large fleet of f-4 with 80km radars and combat radius of around 500km with a serious payload. an unarmed fleet of mirage f-1 which at best carries two sidewinders/pl-7/crotale missile and free fall bombs. a fleet of f-7 which is capable of carrying four IR missiles or four rocket pods at best.
all those planes fly right now and they are our best multi-roles, our best hopes to bomb enemy and protect our sky. and they cost us to keep them fly worthy.
also if an air force was so bad then why IRGC itself made it's own air force and recycled ex-iraqi su-22?? another burden to our crew chiefs??
this was never about fighter jets vs missiles...

I used to think exactly the same way as you until very recently. Iran needed to upgrade its air force fleet.

but the results are in. and without question missiles have shown their worth. Irans attack on the US base was a game changer. hitting exact tents. The amount of sheer damage it caused.

in the event of a war, Iran can paralyze a major enemy base with less then 50 missiles EASILY. enemy baracks, radar stations, command centres, runaways, repair buildings, and fuel depots getting hit and secondary fires everywhere.. just the shock, casualties, chaos, and battle damage assesment of that mayhem will takes days/weeks to sort out. let alone repairing the damage under more enemy fire, or replacing your dead specialists...

enemy planes will not be taking off to do shit in that environment.

American missile defense systems have shown a very weak performance in virtually any real world scenario( not rigged by its marketing department) that they have come across..

when you have a limited budget, combined with extremely high tech enemies with a bottomless pit of money for defense budgets.. it be a HUGE waste of resources to upgrade the airforce at the cost of tens of billions, and extreme dependence on a foreign power.

rather spend that and invest in something else to be honest. at least in the current circumstances.

Iran is in a unique geopolitical position.

 

[QWECXZ]

It is because you have not red the resolution. Paragraph 10 of the resolution calls the US and others "JCPOA participants" . The snapback can be triggered by one of the JCPOA participants and JCPOA is part of the resolution 2231. US cannot announce it is exiting JCPOA and still call itself JCPOA participant.
I also refer you to paragraph 37 of the JCPOA laying down the steps that will lead to the paragraph 11 of the resolution. US cannot just jump on paragraph 11 without going through those steps as paragraph 10 expresses the security Council intention to address possible complaints through procedure specified in JCPOA.

No, it is because you didn't read my post. I said what if the US asks the UK to activate it? We all know that Boris has a soft spot for Donald.

 

[Blue In Green]

The problem is that this is not just my opinion....This is military theory accepted all over the world...

That air force is used to support own ground force by degrading enemy ground forces, infrastructure, provide close air support, paralyze enemy supply lines and prevent reinforcements from arriving.

You need tens of thousands of sorties for that and ballistic missiles can't do it

Sincerely don't get where people are getting this idea that a large missile force would be able to replace much less takeover for the traditional operations a large Air-Force would normally undertake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Iran need Ballistic-missile counts in the 50,000+ range in order for it to arguably "replace" a traditional air-force since then the stockpiles would be large enough to be used in place of regular air-strikes done by jets? I know it's not economical but I'm just talking pure numbers here, also lol is it even possible for Iran physically make that many?

 

[Rukarl]

Sincerely don't get where people are getting this idea that a large missile force would be able to replace much less takeover for the traditional operations a large Air-Force would.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Iran need Ballistic-missile counts in the 50,000+ range in order for it to arguably "replace" a traditional air-force since then the stockpiles would be large enough to be used in place on regular air-strikes? I know it's not economical but I'm just talking pure numbers here, also lol is it even possible for Iran physically make that many?

Considering that we have been researching and producing BM's in peacetime from 1988 (32 years) until now the number produced would be well over 15.000 (conservative estimate)

 

[Arminkh]

No, it is because you didn't read my post. I said what if the US asks the UK to activate it? We all know that Boris has a soft spot for Donald.

Because you probably said that to someone else.

UK is a JCPOA participant. He needs to go through the same process in paragraph 37. You see, major violation of JCPOA term doesn't have a meaning without JCPOA. You cannot borrow the definition of violation from JCPOA in order to trigger the snap back and ignore the rest of it. You cannot pick and choose.

 

[Blue In Green]

Considering that we have been researching and producing BM's in peacetime from 1988 (32 years) until now the number produced would be well over 15.000 (conservative estimate)

The higher the missile stockpile the better, fair enough, but I still don't think that alone would be alone to make up the difference though.

 

[zartosht]

Sincerely don't get where people are getting this idea that a large missile force would be able to replace much less takeover for the traditional operations a large Air-Force would normally undertake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Iran need Ballistic-missile counts in the 50,000+ range in order for it to arguably "replace" a traditional air-force since then the stockpiles would be large enough to be used in place on regular air-strikes? I know it's not economical but I'm just talking pure numbers here, also lol is it even possible for Iran physically make that many?

what is your idea of a "traditional air force"? because when people count sorties vs. missile strike. are you also factoring survivability? Iranian missiles can hit Saudi arabia with virtual 100% certainty.. can Saudi airforce surivive Iranian air defense/missile strikes? if not then how are they going to get any sorties in??

just because you have 300 aircraft and x tonnage bombs. doesn't mean anything unless various factors are met. missiles can just fire immidiatly, with high survivability for mobile tels (unlike stationary airbases). and very high chance of penetrating enemy defenses even in their absolute 100% alert/undamaged state.

if were talking about a battle space where the enemy has 0 air defence capability. then a modernness of your bombers are irrelevant. a Tucano can be used in that scenario just as well.

ive seen ww2 get thrown around which is absolutely ridiculous example. it was an era where missile air defense was in its infancy, while air power had been established for decades. The bombers had a huge advantage to the point where its incomparable to todays era. back then you could send in masses of hundreds of bombers to anahilate a city. with the enemies guns maybe taking out 5-10% of your aircraft at most. doing that today without completely having taken out the enemy air defences would result in a mass slaughter,..

there was even a saying back then "the bombers always get thru" or something like that...

that period is NOT COMPARABLE to todays missile defense era. A non stealth aircraft attacking Iranian airspace would be on a suicide mission. even 5th gen aircraft would have extreme difficulty with Iran having already shot down a 500 million dollar US "stealth" spy aircraft.

comparing israel. a country with the latest in top western tech. vs Syria. a bombed out failed state, in a state of total war, with a handful of modern Russian systems probably under Russian control with 0 Russian interest in actually shooting down israeli planes.. nota fair example. especially since Israel picks the exact time and place and always has the element of surprise on its side.

that's why the combo of missiles, with air defenses makes Iran extremely potent. Only the US can challenge this arguably (with a huge cost to themselves).

 

[GWXP]

Sincerely don't get where people are getting this idea that a large missile force would be able to replace much less takeover for the traditional operations a large Air-Force would normally undertake.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Iran need Ballistic-missile counts in the 50,000+ range in order for it to arguably "replace" a traditional air-force since then the stockpiles would be large enough to be used in place on regular air-strikes? I know it's not economical but I'm just talking pure numbers here, also lol is it even possible for Iran physically make that many?

People here seriously believe that Iran might have 10.000-18.000 ballistic missiles ---if this number is true then it makes Iran the country with THE LARGEST MISSILE FORCE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, despite the fact that it is accepted that it is China -the country with the largest missile force in the world with estimates putting Chinese missiles force at couple of thousands of ballistic missiles...

Fanboys don't like it, preferring to believe propaganda, but I think that General McKeznie's confession to US Congress with claim that Iran has "between 2500-3000 ballistic missiles" is closer to truth.

In addition people here believe missile force of some 2500 missiles can be crucial in total war....

Assuming 2500 missiles and the fact that over 20% of missiles fail in flight, Iran can effectively launch 2000 missiles...now assuming that 300 missiles will be intercepted by Patriot we have 1700 hits delivering only 1100 tons of payload.

It is naive to believe that 1100 tons can change the course of war----for comparison it took US 90.000 sorties delivering 90.000 tons of bombs to cripple Iraq of 1991.

Assuming Iran faces an adversary like Saddam's Iraq--it is difficult to imagine how 1700 hits can shatter the balance of power....Because in the end, Saddams' army of 1 mln men and 5000 tanks and APCs will stand---to degrade this force airpower is required.

Hope for the best but be prepare for the worst...what if in the near future there will be a war with Turkey in Northern Iraq or Syria? Turkey has 500.000 strong army and the same amount of reserves plus thousands of tanks---how ballistic missiles can destroy this force? We have people here claiming that couple of ballistic missiles launches will ruin economy of 80mln nation, but even if so (which I doubt), how to deal with Turkish military? Air power is required

People believe that by hitting infrastructure objects they will keep them inoperable for a long time---I recommend them to read Albert Speers memoirs where he describes how despite massive bombing campaign against Nazi Germany-----all the damaged factories and powerplants were rebuild in matter of weeks despite massive enemy fire--in fact Germany was able to boost military output despite damage to its infrastructure. Those who claim that it was 70 years ago are free to provide evidence showing that damage can not be fixed in meaningful period of time in modern times.

There is analysis of effects of Chinese bombardment of Kadena air base in Japan with 178 ballistic missiles and how it takes 5-7 hours to repair the runways and keep base operational.

While I agree that missile force can inflict substantial damage to critical infrastructure, I think there is no need to overestimate this effect.

In addition claiming that airpower is of little use and missiles are better, if so, no one here explained why Russia have only couple of hundreds of Iskander missiles and preferes to buy expensive Su-30 and Su-35 instead...Why China, instead of arming itself to teeth with ballistic missiles develop and buys expensive fighter jets instead....

Claiming that air defense systems are some sort of a panacea to air power...one doesn't take into account that enemy fighter jet will employ tactics that will overcome AD systems......Fighter can 1) fly low under the radar, 2) can start a massive anti-radiation campaign, 3) launch decoys that exhaust numbers of AD systems' interceptors 4) modern fighter jets launch gliding bombs from 150km away from their targets and well beyond the range of AD systems.

So, Iran can make 1700 hits and deliver 1100 tons of payload and that is ALL--after this missile arsenal is exhausted....

150 fighters, employing tactics to overcome enemy AD systrems can deliver 1500tons of payload in just ONE SORTIE --and they can make thousands of sorties.

Instead of developing own bizzare theories people here must understand that ballistic missile is not a substitute for airpower. Rather, it complements air power, which is a king.

Iran must take example of Russia and China, who employ some arsenal of ballistic missile to target strategic targets, but generaly rely on massive air power.....

So conclusion is that Iran needs to buy 100-150 fighter/bombers-----whether Russia or China will sell is another question

 

[Sineva]

I used to think exactly the same way as you until very recently. Iran needed to upgrade its air force fleet.

but the results are in. and without question missiles have shown their worth. Irans attack on the US base was a game changer. hitting exact tents. The amount of sheer damage it caused.

in the event of a war, Iran can paralyze a major enemy base with less then 50 missiles EASILY. enemy baracks, radar stations, command centres, runaways, repair buildings, and fuel depots getting hit and secondary fires everywhere.. just the shock, casualties, chaos, and battle damage assesment of that mayhem will takes days/weeks to sort out. let alone repairing the damage under more enemy fire, or replacing your dead specialists...

enemy planes will not be taking off to do shit in that environment.

American missile defense systems have shown a very weak performance in virtually any real world scenario( not rigged by its marketing department) that they have come across..

when you have a limited budget, combined with extremely high tech enemies with a bottomless pit of money for defense budgets.. it be a HUGE waste of resources to upgrade the airforce at the cost of tens of billions, and extreme dependence on a foreign power.

rather spend that and invest in something else to be honest. at least in the current circumstances.

Iran is in a unique geopolitical position.

"Iran is in a unique geopolitical position"
I literally could not have put that any better myself.With that simple sentence you have neatly stated why manned airpower could not be irans first choice for its military and the basis for its defence strategy.
For iran to have ignored its rather unique geopolitical situation,and I would add its resulting unique military and defense requirements,in favor of an orthodox off the shelf defence strategy ie a ww2/cold war-style air power heavy doctrine,and of course its resulting massive hardware,logistics and infrastructure procurements,would have been an absolute disaster for iran militarily as not only would`ve it cost far,far more in terms of both money and other resources,but it also would`ve left iran far,far weaker overall in real terms militarily.

 

[313ghazi]

I used to think exactly the same way as you until very recently. Iran needed to upgrade its air force fleet.

but the results are in. and without question missiles have shown their worth. Irans attack on the US base was a game changer. hitting exact tents. The amount of sheer damage it caused.

in the event of a war, Iran can paralyze a major enemy base with less then 50 missiles EASILY. enemy baracks, radar stations, command centres, runaways, repair buildings, and fuel depots getting hit and secondary fires everywhere.. just the shock, casualties, chaos, and battle damage assesment of that mayhem will takes days/weeks to sort out. let alone repairing the damage under more enemy fire, or replacing your dead specialists...

enemy planes will not be taking off to do shit in that environment.

American missile defense systems have shown a very weak performance in virtually any real world scenario( not rigged by its marketing department) that they have come across..

when you have a limited budget, combined with extremely high tech enemies with a bottomless pit of money for defense budgets.. it be a HUGE waste of resources to upgrade the airforce at the cost of tens of billions, and extreme dependence on a foreign power.

rather spend that and invest in something else to be honest. at least in the current circumstances.

Iran is in a unique geopolitical position.

Iran had pre-warned the Iraqi's of a strike, which allowed the US to vacate and avoid casulties. I applaud Iran for the courage to carry out a reaction, but it was measured - to both avoid triggering escalation and yet appeasing public anger.

Had an escalation occured, Iran might have been able to rain down missiles for weeks on end, but the US has a lot more firepower and would have had total control of the Iranian skies, taking ourt your airforce, targeting AD and then chipping away at your armed forces, command and control and missile facilities. They would have upped the levels of violence significantly.

An airforce won't stop them entirely, but certainly will slow down aggressors. It puts the lives on US pilots and expensive aircraft at risk.

 

[Blue In Green]

what is your idea of a "traditional air force"? because when people count sorties vs. missile strike. are you also factoring survivability? Iranian missiles can hit Saudi arabia with virtual 100% certainty.. can Saudi airforce surivive Iranian air defense/missile strikes? if not then how are they going to get any sorties in??

just because you have 300 aircraft and x tonnage bombs. doesn't mean anything unless various factors are met. missiles can just fire immidiatly, with high survivability for mobile tels (unlike stationary airbases). and very high chance of penetrating enemy defenses even in their absolute 100% alert/undamaged state.

if were talking about a battle space where the enemy has 0 air defence capability. then a modernness of your bombers are irrelevant. a Tucano can be used in that scenario just as well.

ive seen ww2 get thrown around which is absolutely ridiculous example. it was an era where missile air defense was in its infancy, while air power had been established for decades. The bombers had a huge advantage to the point where its incomparable to todays era. back then you could send in masses of hundreds of bombers to anahilate a city. with the enemies guns maybe taking out 5-10% of your aircraft at most. doing that today without completely having taken out the enemy air defences would result in a mass slaughter,..

there was even a saying back then "the bombers always get thru" or something like that...

that period is NOT COMPARABLE to todays missile defense era. A non stealth aircraft attacking Iranian airspace would be on a suicide mission. even 5th gen aircraft would have extreme difficulty with Iran having already shot down a 500 million dollar US "stealth" spy aircraft.

comparing israel. a country with the latest in top western tech. vs Syria. a bombed out failed state, in a state of total war, with a handful of modern Russian systems probably under Russian control with 0 Russian interest in actually shooting down israeli planes.. nota fair example. especially since Israel picks the exact time and place and always has the element of surprise on its side.

that's why the combo of missiles, with air defenses makes Iran extremely potent. Only the US can challenge this arguably (with a huge cost to themselves).

Respectfully speaking I don't think the argument should be centered around the battle-field effectiveness of Ballistic Missiles (we know that they work, we've seen them working time and time again) but rather the long-term viability of ballistic missiles as a weapon to alter or change the course of a war from a strategic and tactical point of view.

Although my military knowledge is indeed pretty basic compared to yours and many others on PDF I can at least point out the basic concept of numbers when it applies to general warfare topics. In a short-term or long-term drawn out conflict we can clearly deduce, rather easily, that relying on a missile-force to do the heavy lifting (replacing Jets for strike missions) can have clear shortcomings and advantages.

Iran for example has a large/diverse Missile Arsenal comprising of munitions that have various rangers, payloads, capabilities etc. We know Iran will use the Fateh-313s, Zolfaghars, Dezfuls, Hormuz-1 and 2, Khoramsharr, Shahab, Emad, Seijil and many others for different missions but at the root of all that is the physical count of all these missiles. Even if Iran were to score direct hits on enemy installations (of which there are literally thousands, upon thousands). Iran would quickly run out of missiles whilst Iran's enemies simply repair their destroyed or damaged facilities over the span of weeks to days. This is all happening in the midst of Iran being bombarded by waves and waves of advanced fighter air-craft firing stand-off munitions well outside Iran's AD umbrella. Iran like Syria or any other nation really, simply (at least for now) doesn't have enough AD systems to economically offset the sheer amount of munitions coming its way via fighter-aircraft. I would much rather Iran put Ballistic missile development closer to the back and focus on procuring at least some appreciable amount of modern air-craft to complement its large Missile-force.


If Iran can have an air-wing that of which can lob tons and tons of munitions in one sortie whilst the Missile-forces focus on other targets, this would be a better combo imo.

Sorry if my response sounds confusing or incomplete, I'm half-asleep right now lol.

Iran had pre-warned the Iraqi's of a strike, which allowed the US to vacate and avoid casulties. I applaud Iran for the courage to carry out a reaction, but it was measured - to both avoid triggering escalation and yet appeasing public anger.

Had an escalation occured, Iran might have been able to rain down missiles for weeks on end, but the US has a lot more firepower and would have had total control of the Iranian skies, taking ourt your airforce, targeting AD and then chipping away at your armed forces, command and control and missile facilities. They would have upped the levels of violence significantly.

An airforce won't stop them entirely, but certainly will slow down aggressors. It puts the lives on US pilots and expensive aircraft at risk.

More or less there seems to be two camps of people here. Both camps acknowledge Iran's large missile force but dispute the actual number of missiles which greatly affects how a conflict against a larger symmetrical military (like the U.S.) would play out.

If you're in the camp that believes Iran has literally over 10,000 ballistic missiles then the idea of actually destroying or possibly even 'winning' a conflict against the U.S. might become more feasible, might...Conversely if you're in the camp that believes Iran only has 2,000-5,000 total ballistic missiles then your assessment is pretty much accurate for the most part. In the case that Iran only has a couple thousand then really all Iran would be doing (at least from a military stand point) is setting back operations for weeks to months at best, although if the bulk of Iran's missile-forces are to be used to attack economic facilities then the damage will obviously be much much greater.

The second scenario though doesn't paint all that much of an optimistic picture for the Iranian armed forces since Air Defenses alone won't really stop the advancement of American Air-power over time, it will only hinder for a little while.

 

[QWECXZ]

Because you probably said that to someone else.

UK is a JCPOA participant. He needs to go through the same process in paragraph 37. You see, major violation of JCPOA term doesn't have a meaning without JCPOA. You cannot borrow the definition of violation from JCPOA in order to trigger the snap back and ignore the rest of it. You cannot pick and choose.

Specifically, the JCPOA establishes the following dispute resolution process: if a party to the JCPOA has reason to believe that another party is not upholding its commitments under the agreement, then the complaining party may refer its complaint to the Joint Commission, a body created under the JCPOA to monitor implementation.[71][115] If a complaint made by a non-Iran party is not resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining party within thirty-five days of referral, then that party could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the JCPOA, notify the United Nations Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance, or both.[115] The Security Council would then have thirty days to adopt a resolution to continue the lifting of sanctions. If such a resolution is not adopted within those thirty days, then the sanctions of all of the pre-JCPOA nuclear-related UN Security Council resolutions would automatically be re-imposed. Iran has stated that in such a case, it would cease performing its nuclear obligations under the deal.[59][115] The effect of this rule is that any permanent member of the Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, China, Russia and France) can veto any ongoing sanctions relief, but no member can veto the re-imposition of sanctions.

The point is that if the snapback mechanism is activated by only one non-Iran party, which requires absolutely no reason or report by the IAEA, then the UNSC has to decide whether they will continue lifting of the sanctions or not, and not whether the sanctions should be reimposed or not. So, basically China and Russia can't veto the decision to reimpose the sanctions.

 

[QWECXZ]

People here seriously believe that Iran might have 10.000-18.000 ballistic missiles ---if this number is true then it makes Iran the country with THE LARGEST MISSILE FORCE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, despite the fact that it is accepted that it is China -the country with the largest missile force in the world with estimates putting Chinese missiles force at couple of thousands of ballistic missiles...

Fanboys don't like it, preferring to believe propaganda, but I think that General McKeznie's confession to US Congress with claim that Iran has "between 2500-3000 ballistic missiles" is closer to truth.

In addition people here believe missile force of some 2500 missiles can be crucial in total war....

Assuming 2500 missiles and the fact that over 20% of missiles fail in flight, Iran can effectively launch 2000 missiles...now assuming that 300 missiles will be intercepted by Patriot we have 1700 hits delivering only 1100 tons of payload.

It is naive to believe that 1100 tons can change the course of war----for comparison it took US 90.000 sorties delivering 90.000 tons of bombs to cripple Iraq of 1991.

Assuming Iran faces an adversary like Saddam's Iraq--it is difficult to imagine how 1700 hits can shatter the balance of power....Because in the end, Saddams' army of 1 mln men and 5000 tanks and APCs will stand---to degrade this force airpower is required.

Hope for the best but be prepare for the worst...what if in the near future there will be a war with Turkey in Northern Iraq or Syria? Turkey has 500.000 strong army and the same amount of reserves plus thousands of tanks---how ballistic missiles can destroy this force? We have people here claiming that couple of ballistic missiles launches will ruin economy of 80mln nation, but even if so (which I doubt), how to deal with Turkish military? Air power is required

People believe that by hitting infrastructure objects they will keep them inoperable for a long time---I recommend them to read Albert Speers memoirs where he describes how despite massive bombing campaign against Nazi Germany-----all the damaged factories and powerplants were rebuild in matter of weeks despite massive enemy fire--in fact Germany was able to boost military output despite damage to its infrastructure. Those who claim that it was 70 years ago are free to provide evidence showing that damage can not be fixed in meaningful period of time in modern times.

There is analysis of effects of Chinese bombardment of Kadena air base in Japan with 178 ballistic missiles and how it takes 5-7 hours to repair the runways and keep base operational.

While I agree that missile force can inflict substantial damage to critical infrastructure, I think there is no need to overestimate this effect.

In addition claiming that airpower is of little use and missiles are better, if so, no one here explained why Russia have only couple of hundreds of Iskander missiles and preferes to buy expensive Su-30 and Su-35 instead...Why China, instead of arming itself to teeth with ballistic missiles develop and buys expensive fighter jets instead....

Claiming that air defense systems are some sort of a panacea to air power...one doesn't take into account that enemy fighter jet will employ tactics that will overcome AD systems......Fighter can 1) fly low under the radar, 2) can start a massive anti-radiation campaign, 3) launch decoys that exhaust numbers of AD systems' interceptors 4) modern fighter jets launch gliding bombs from 150km away from their targets and well beyond the range of AD systems.

So, Iran can make 1700 hits and deliver 1100 tons of payload and that is ALL--after this missile arsenal is exhausted....

150 fighters, employing tactics to overcome enemy AD systrems can deliver 1500tons of payload in just ONE SORTIE --and they can make thousands of sorties.

Instead of developing own bizzare theories people here must understand that ballistic missile is not a substitute for airpower. Rather, it complements air power, which is a king.

Iran must take example of Russia and China, who employ some arsenal of ballistic missile to target strategic targets, but generaly rely on massive air power.....

So conclusion is that Iran needs to buy 100-150 fighter/bombers-----whether Russia or China will sell is another question

Seriously, you have embarrassed yourself enough here. I think it's time for you to start learning about modern warfare (not 70 years ago) before talking about this sort of things.

Here's an example for you from Iraq-Iran war in 1980s: Do you know anything about Operation Kaman 99? It was one of the world's largest operations by an Air Force in history until this day. Around 60 F4s, 90 F5s and 60 F14s took part in the operation. The idea was to achieve air superiority over Iraq and show Iran retains military power after the revolution and the operation was successful. It was done in the first months of the war and gave Iran air superiority for the first two years of the Iraq-Iran war. Yet, on the ground, Iraq invaded Iranian territories, including Khorramshahr (a key Iranian city in the oil-rich Khuzestan province) and we couldn't take it back for 2 years even though we had established air superiority. Iraqis claim they shot down over 50 Iranian jet fighters that day. Just to show you how such an impressive, extremely successful operation can have insane casualties and losses and yet fails to achieve victory on the ground.

So, your idea that 130 Su-30s can give a country air superiority which will ultimately lead to wins on the ground is just a fanboy theory acquired from Hollywood movies. If +140 up to date American (well-upgraded and customized) jet fighters couldn't ensure Iran's victory in the first 2 years of war (where we had established air superiority over Iraq), a bunch of 4+ Russian jet fighters will not a lot better to the modern and heavily-upgraded air forces that our adversaries have in the region.

Iran has been mass producing missiles for +25 years. As I said, even if Iran makes 1000 missiles per year in average which is within our industrial capacities, our missiles will top 25,000. And considering the fact that all of our military budget has more or less been focused on missile development in recent decades, that's not far-fetched for Iran. I don't care how many missiles China has, China has other priorities, tools at her disposal, resources and strategies. If you don't get the idea of specialization when it comes to military, you're just not qualified to discuss military issues. Iran also boasts about having the world's largest flee of speed boats which tells you that Iran is investing its money on very specific things to establish deterrence.

I already told you that Iraqi civilian infrastructure is still suffering from the 2003 US invasion. Iraq, a major energy supplier, relies on Iran for keeping lights on in Baghdad. As for Iran, our oil output before the Iraq-Iran war was about 5 million barrels per day. We never reached the same oil output 30 years after the war. And if you think an airport where runways, tower, hangars, navigation and communication systems have been destroyed will be operational in hours, then there's no need to tell you anything because you don't seem capable of understanding them.

As for Abqaiq, you were already given a link from Business Insider that experts believe it will take months to repair the damage. A simple search on Google will give you hundreds of similar articles. The idea of the Abqaiq Operation was not to cut the Saudi oil flow (otherwise they wouldn't have hit the storage facilities with high precision), the idea was to send a message that your vital infrastructure is vulnerable. The mission was extremely successful at the cheapest cost possible.

So, here's a comparison for you. Feel free to deny each one you think is incorrect and add anything you think should be added.

Missiles versus Jet Fighters:

1- Jet fighters are reusable. They can carry loads of bombs and ammunitions in one sortie.
2- Jet fighters can provide close air support for ground troops.
3- You need pilots to operate those jet fighters. It takes years of training to have good pilots. Once shot down, your pilot will be a POW and you will have to find a way to release him. If killed, you will lose hardly-trained human capital. In any case, you will have to provide his family with benefits for at least decades after that.
4- Because jet fighters have pilots, you should always count human error, emotions and fear during operations.
5- Jet fighters can be intercepted more easily than ballistic missiles.
6- You need to overhaul your jet fighters after 100s of hours. That requires expertise and contract rights that operators don't have. So, you rely on your provider for that.
7- Although jet fighters are reusable, they generally cost a lot more than missiles. Although this cost issue will be resolved after lots of sorties, still one F35 fighter still costs more than 100 Iranian missiles.
8- Neither missiles nor jet fighters alone cannot guarantee anything on the ground as examples have been provided before. (Iraq-Iran war, US-Taliban war, Syrian civil war, Saudi-Yemen war)
9- Solid fuel missiles take less time to prepare. They can hit a target in our neighborhood much faster than a group of jet fighters flying at low altitude.
10- Solid fuel missiles are harder to detect than jet fighters considering the current early warning systems.

 

[GWXP]

Seriously, you have embarrassed yourself enough here. I think it's time for you to start learning about modern warfare (not 70 years ago) before talking about this sort of things.

Here's an example for you from Iraq-Iran war in 1980s: Do you know anything about Operation Kaman 99? It was one of the world's largest operations by an Air Force in history until this day. Around 60 F4s, 90 F5s and 60 F14s took part in the operation. The idea was to achieve air superiority over Iraq and show Iran retains military power after the revolution and the operation was successful. It was done in the first months of the war and gave Iran air superiority for the first two years of the Iraq-Iran war. Yet, on the ground, Iraq invaded Iranian territories, including Khorramshahr (a key Iranian city in the oil-rich Khuzestan province) and we couldn't take it back for 2 years even though we had established air superiority. Iraqis claim they shot down over 50 Iranian jet fighters that day. Just to show you how such an impressive, extremely successful operation can have insane casualties and losses and yet fails to achieve victory on the ground.

So, your idea that 130 Su-30s can give a country air superiority which will ultimately lead to wins on the ground is just a fanboy theory acquired from Hollywood movies. If +140 up to date American (well-upgraded and customized) jet fighters couldn't ensure Iran's victory in the first 2 years of war (where we had established air superiority over Iraq), a bunch of 4+ Russian jet fighters will not a lot better to the modern and heavily-upgraded air forces that our adversaries have in the region.

Iran has been mass producing missiles for +25 years. As I said, even if Iran makes 1000 missiles per year in average which is within our industrial capacities, our missiles will top 25,000. And considering the fact that all of our military budget has more or less been focused on missile development in recent decades, that's not far-fetched for Iran. I don't care how many missiles China has, China has other priorities, tools at her disposal, resources and strategies. If you don't get the idea of specialization when it comes to military, you're just not qualified to discuss military issues. Iran also boasts about having the world's largest flee of speed boats which tells you that Iran is investing its money on very specific things to establish deterrence.

I already told you that Iraqi civilian infrastructure is still suffering from the 2003 US invasion. Iraq, a major energy supplier, relies on Iran for keeping lights on in Baghdad. As for Iran, our oil output before the Iraq-Iran war was about 5 million barrels per day. We never reached the same oil output 30 years after the war. And if you think an airport where runways, tower, hangars, navigation and communication systems have been destroyed will be operational in hours, then there's no need to tell you anything because you don't seem capable of understanding them.

As for Abqaiq, you were already given a link from Business Insider that experts believe it will take months to repair the damage. A simple search on Google will give you hundreds of similar articles. The idea of the Abqaiq Operation was not to cut the Saudi oil flow (otherwise they wouldn't have hit the storage facilities with high precision), the idea was to send a message that your vital infrastructure is vulnerable. The mission was extremely successful at the cheapest cost possible.

So, here's a comparison for you. Feel free to deny each one you think is incorrect and add anything you think should be added.

Missiles versus Jet Fighters:

1- Jet fighters are reusable. They can carry loads of bombs and ammunitions in one sortie.
2- Jet fighters can provide close air support for ground troops.
3- You need pilots to operate those jet fighters. It takes years of training to have good pilots. Once shot down, your pilot will be a POW and you will have to find a way to release him. If killed, you will lose hardly-trained human capital. In any case, you will have to provide his family with benefits for at least decades after that.
4- Because jet fighters have pilots, you should always count human error, emotions and fear during operations.
5- Jet fighters can be intercepted more easily than ballistic missiles.
6- You need to overhaul your jet fighters after 100s of hours. That requires expertise and contract rights that operators don't have. So, you rely on your provider for that.
7- Although jet fighters are reusable, they generally cost a lot more than missiles. Although this cost issue will be resolved after lots of sorties, still one F35 fighter still costs more than 100 Iranian missiles.
8- Neither missiles nor jet fighters alone cannot guarantee anything on the ground as examples have been provided before. (Iraq-Iran war, US-Taliban war, Syrian civil war, Saudi-Yemen war)
9- Solid fuel missiles take less time to prepare. They can hit a target in our neighborhood much faster than a group of jet fighters flying at low altitude.
10- Solid fuel missiles are harder to detect than jet fighters considering the current early warning systems.

You totally embarrassed yourself by contradicting globally accepted military theory probably you done it because of your ignorance---Like a total amateur you try to prove that airpower is uselss (which is laughable) and that ballistic missiles can be a substitute for airpower, which is laughable as well.

You talked about some failed Iranian operations, while ignoring crucial nature airpower played in Arab-Israeli wars allowing Israeli ground force to conduct deep strategic penetrations against Arabs, Gulf War 1991-which some people say was won by airpower and Yugoslavia

Instead of talking nonsense about deadly effects on airfields you better make research about Analysis of potential Chinese missile attacks on Kadena base in Japan

Regarding Abqaiq---BI wrote bullshit estimate that appeared to be wrong in reality and it took short amount of time to repair Abqaiq and now it is fully operational

I hoped that deep in mind you understand that Iranian switch toward missiles is made out of despair, however you try to prove that missiles are better, which is laughable to everyone who at least understands something in military affairs.

Entire world knows that airpower is a king...entire world except you

You fantasies about total destruction by missiles doesn't even worse replying.....You are centainly the one who learn from military theory by playing video games

You can continue believing that Iran has a fantastic number 25000 missiles which totally destroys your credibility....(you could even switch to 100.000 why not)

Also, Failure of Iranian air force operations during Iran-Iraq war is due to inability to conduct high rate of sorties---and not because air force is of little utility

 

[QWECXZ]

You totally embarrassed yourself by contradicting globally accepted military theory probably you done it because of your ignorance---Like a total amateur you try to prove that airpower is uselss (which is laughable) and that ballistic missiles can be a substitute for airpower, which is laughable as well.

Yeah. The guy who doesn't know the difference between a jet fighter and WWII airplanes like Spitfire and P-51 is really the one to talk about military. And the best proof of your stupidity and childish fanboy behavior is that you think people were trying to prove air force is useless while people are talking about a completely different thing and you're completely clueless about what they are trying to tell you. Well, honestly I didn't expect more of you.

You talked about some failed Iranian operations, while ignoring crucial nature airpower played in Arab-Israeli wars allowing Israeli ground force to conduct deep strategic penetrations against Arabs, Gulf War 1991-which some people say was won by airpower and Yugoslavia

Failed operations? Kaman 99 was a successful operation. Did you even read what I wrote? 150 up to date modern, well-upgraded, US made jet fighters at that time bombed Iraqi airports and established air superiority over Iraq for the first 2 years of war. Yet, we were losing battles on the ground regardless of having established air superiority. Now continue with how amazing 130 Su-30's will be for winning wars.

Instead of talking nonsense about deadly effects on airfields you better make research about Analysis of potential Chinese missile attacks on Kadena base in Japan

I'm just shaking my head in disappointment. Sorry.

Regarding Abqaiq---BI wrote bullshit estimate that appeared to be wrong in reality and it took short amount of time to repair Abqaiq and now it is fully operational

Well, you can't tell the difference between a government's budget and GDP. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between oil storage facilities and oil production facilities. I didn't expect more from you.

I hoped that deep in mind you understand that Iranian switch toward missiles is made out of despair, however you try to prove that missiles are better, which is laughable to everyone who at least understands something in military affairs.

I just explained to you why the Iraq-Iran war experience taught us that accurate missiles are a better, more economic option for us. And now that UCAVs are there, there's a lot that can happen in future wars.

You fantasies about total destruction by missiles doesn't even worse replying.....You are centainly the one who learn from military theory by playing video games

It's a fantasy that is shared by the US as well. As their major recent attacks on Syria used tens of tomahawk missiles to destroy several Syrian airfields.

You can continue believing that Iran has a fantastic number 25000 missiles which totally destroys your credibility....(you could even switch to 100.000 why not)

I'd rather believe an Iranian general than some internet warrior whose best examples of warfare refers to World War II examples. LMAO

Also, Failure of Iranian air force operations during Iran-Iraq war is due to inability to conduct high rate of sorties---and not because air force is of little utility

You don't know shit about Iraq-Iran war. Why would I waste my time on you? Go educate yourself, kid. I already mentioned some names about IAF operations. Go study them on your own.

And you didn't have anything to add or deny in my list comparing missiles and jet fighters. That shows you are too emotional, childish and hot-headed to discuss this sort of things.