Why Iran Isn’t Keen to Replace its Ageing F-4D/E and F-5E Fighters: Preserving Domestic Industry at a High Cost

[Sinnerman108]

The F-14 was one of the most maintenance extensive platform ever even by USAF standards.

Iran can't pay weapon manufacturers directly or indirectly because
a. it is sanctioned
b. The manufacturers fear sanctions

The remainder manufacturers, Europeans or Americans won't sell anything to Iran under current regime.

Iran has a choice of only Russian or Chinese.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Salar , if you say what defeat , i ask you last two week ,in which cave you were living. right now north of Donetsk is open and flanked and Ukrainian moving forward into Donetsk

When I read "defeat after defeat", separate successive conflicts is what I think of - not specific battles withing one and the same war. Hence my question.

If looking at the various conflicts the Russian Federation has been involved in (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria), Moscow scored victories in every case with the exception of the first Chechen war, fought at a time when Russia was at its weakest point in over 70 years.

If however the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is meant, all I will say is that it's far from over. We shall wait and see.

At any rate, none of this invalidates the fact that Russia hasn't been employing ballistic missiles the way Iran would in plausible conflict scenarii. Nor the fact that the defensive war Iran would be conducting against an aggressor like the USA regime, wouldn't be comparable to the offensive Russian ground operation in Ukraine - a country which is not primarily relying on its air force, so any comparison would be moot anyway.

you talk about oka , what fear it bring a 500km missile with 120m cep. we were there and the strategy didn't bring down the moral of city of Dezful.

PeeD does, I quoted them. And I trust their expertise over the opinion of others with more limited insight into the subject matter.

The minimal CEP for the Oka is stated to be in the 30 meters range.

As for what NATO used to fear about it, it's explained in the cited post. And it has nothing to do with terrorizing civilians.

Had Saddam possessed the means and the intelligence to subject Iranian air bases to sustained BM strikes like the Soviets could have done to NATO in the 1980's, the Sacred Defence would have taken a very different and unpleasant turn.

wonder why you guys always stock in cold war era , why you can't understand the warfare has changed , at least look at Russia failure and learn from it

Russia is not fighting an airpower-focused enemy at the moment.

New geopolitical conditions and technological progress has made missiles highly relevant again.

خنده دار هست بعضی ها شدن روس تر اروسها تا یک کلمه بگی روسیه گند زده . به رگ غیرتشان بر میخوره مثل اینکه به پدر و مادرشان ناسزای ناموسی دادی. متوجه نیستن حقیقت لخت و عریان جلوی چشم همه هست دیده میشه دیگه هیچ جایی برای دفاع نمونده​

Aramtar va mokhtasartar az anche ke neveshtam aslan emkanpazir nist. Harfe shomaro dar morede "shekast poshte shekast" motevaje nashodam, leza so'al porsidam. In kojash neshun mide ke be "gheyratam barkhord"? Inam shod harf?

 

[Hack-Hook]

The minimal CEP for the Oka is stated to be in the 30 meters range.

its the specification

Mass	4,360 kg (9,610 lb)
Length	7.53 m (24.7 ft)
Diameter	0.89 m (2 ft 11 in)
Warhead	Nuclear 50-100 kt, HE fragmentation, submunition, or chemical

at short range , not when you fire it 500km away . Europe was afraid of it because of the possibility of putting nuke on its warhead, it was solid fuel missile unlike Scud so they could fire them fast , if a nuclear tipped oka were fired there was very little warning , they were not afraid of normal armed OKA, of they wanted to use oka to destroy one of the 100+ airfield in Sweden , they had to use not hundred but thousands of them
and the range was a lot less than range of aircraft.

Russia is not fighting an airpower-focused enemy at the moment.

And technological progress has made missiles highly relevant again.

they also can't use their air-power as they lack the necessary equipment to suppress Ukraine air defense , but it won't be the case of GCC.air power role is not limited to destroy enemy air force , its also have the duty of SEAD that allow army aviation and drone do their job

 

[Hack-Hook]

Because russian offensive warfare doctrine is rubbish. For defensive war, though, it would have given it a massive edge.

well all i see is their defensive lines are falling one after one

 

[925boy]

then send your airforce into Iranian airspace and actually test the reaction of F14 pilots and their aircraft! but no,instead you're here just projecting your lack of information as understanding of flaws in Iran's airforce.

Well, cant keep putting lipstick on a pig

but without an airforce Iran is wide open for a foreign invasion.

invasion with only airforce or will that invasion be able to have the needed 500K soldiers needed to actually invade Iran? plese stop with your jokes- NATO and US soldiers are verty afraid to enter and die in Iran, hope you know that? no invasion because westerners would rather dance ,drink and watch football, you're not ready for any serious beef, despite your aircrafts and "soldiers", cuz when its time to boot up, westerners start secret negotiations. smh

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

well all i see is their defensive lines are falling one after one

Of course. They're operating in Ukraine, not Russia. What else would you expect once they've ventured into the lion's mouth totally unprepared?

 

[CLUMSY]

then send your airforce into Iranian airspace and actually test the reaction of F14 pilots and their aircraft! but no,instead you're here just projecting your lack of information as understanding of flaws in Iran's airforce.




invasion with only airforce or will that invasion be able to have the needed 500K soldiers needed to actually invade Iran? plese stop with your jokes- NATO and US soldiers are verty afraid to enter and die in Iran, hope you know that? no invasion because westerners would rather dance ,drink and watch football, you're not ready for any serious beef, despite your aircrafts and "soldiers", cuz when its time to boot up, westerners start secret negotiations. smh

F14 is still good by todays standards. But nowhere near most aircraft serviced by NATO.

 

[SalarHaqq]

its the specification

Mass	4,360 kg (9,610 lb)
Length	7.53 m (24.7 ft)
Diameter	0.89 m (2 ft 11 in)
Warhead	Nuclear 50-100 kt, HE fragmentation, submunition, or chemical

at short range , not when you fire it 500km away . Europe was afraid of it because of the possibility of putting nuke on its warhead, it was solid fuel missile unlike Scud so they could fire them fast , if a nuclear tipped oka were fired there was very little warning , they were not afraid of normal armed OKA, of they wanted to use oka to destroy one of the 100+ airfield in Sweden , they had to use not hundred but thousands of them
and the range was a lot less than range of aircraft.

To quote user PeeD again:

NATO feared that the Soviets could fight a conventional war and cripple their airpower by systems like the Oka. The degradation would then force NATO to use nukes first. The Oka was forbidden and destroyed and is one of Irans role models instead of high attention to airpower.

IRIAF | News and Discussions

So I don't give you a source or example, but keep a professional approach before saying: "... has next to no technical credibility"... If you have no sources or examples, then this is an unproven and experimental materials concept. Now, innovation is no bad thing, but you must remember the most...

defence.pk

Nobody cares about what world air forces do. I care about what the Soviet military was doing in the 80's. That is serious adult stuff. I care about what fear and terror the Oka missile system was causing in NATO command. The fear that it would ground their airpower on which they relied so much.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iriaf-news-and-discussions.358559/page-92#post-9856941

I trust those assessments. And the fact that Iran has managed to deter military aggression by the USA regime and allies post-9/11, despite the fact that she has ranked first among regional adversaries to the Tel Aviv and NATO, furnishes all the confirmation I need, knowing that the missile force has been one of the main assets of deterrence at Iran's disposal. Another indicator, in line with user Beast's comment above, is the sensitivity of world powers in relation to conventional ballistic missile technology, and how they will tend to refrain from proliferating it. It's a game changing weapon of strategic value.

they also can't use their air-power as they lack the necessary equipment to suppress Ukraine air defense , but it won't be the case of GCC.

USA air-power, let alone PGCC air forces, would be largely grounded by Iranian ballistic missile attacks against their indispensable operational infrastructure.

air power role is not limited to destroy enemy air force , its also have the duty of SEAD that allow army aviation and drone do their job

For that Iran has anti-radiation ballistic missiles as well as UAS which are hard to track and destroy by SAM batteries.