well, considering parts are very hard to get in Iran for those things.

given they could be reverse engineered i suppose... but i would put any single U.S. or Royal Eagle Driver up against 3 of Iranians best pilots any day of the week.

in the end it is the man... not the machine that wins the fight.

I dunno..

Man plays a big role, yes, but we're talking 30 and 40 year old tech (in the aircraft & avionics) against top of the line modern fighters with BVR capabilities.. thats like comparing a 1970s f1 racecar against todays top of the line ferarri or similar :03:

ok... true

but put Mario Andretti in the old F1, and say...

http://www.qualitypedalcars.com/file...20Red-Blue.jpg

... put this guy in the super high performance brand new F1 racer

see how that works out.

You have to have your balls screwed on pretty tight for a modern day turn and burn furball... and i just wouldnt rate the iranian pilots very highly.

good perhaps, but not up there with the likes of our guys

The Iranian Air Force does not promote like larger Air Forces do. Many of the pilots there are VERY experienced.

Oh and also:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/06/...-overview.html

PD

Fair enough... i still say our guys would whip em :doh:

I'm quite certain that if it came to a head up conflict between the Iranian air force and any major western power's air force, the Iranians would lose. That's not really the problem to my way of thinking; it's rather a lack of political will on the part of the people or the government.

To date, I think we (the US) have had around 5000 soldiers killed in Iraq. The media makes a huge deal about the numbers, and many civilians think that's way too many. Contrast that with just 65 years ago, the combined US/English/Canadian dead in just one day was nearly that much during the Normandy landings. Then, it was expected. Today, it's unacceptable. The popular opinion seems to be that we should be able to wipe them out of the sky without a single loss, and I think that's frankly unrealistic.

you're absolutely right.

it used to be "we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks"

now its "Just get it over with... and try not to hurt anyone or get blood on anything."

In a conventional conflict, yes. But the Iranians know a lot about fighting an asymmetrical conflict.

The US Navy found this out the hard way in an exercise. The 'red team' (Iranians) launched a human wave suicide attack against the US fleet. The result was 16 American ships sunk, including 3 carriers, with about 20,000 US casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

So that explains the development of the RIM-116 RAM missile. I never knew why before. They are starting to be deployed on all combat ships in the US Navy. Seems to me they did learn something from this exercise way back when. I'm guessing they already knew this vulnerability to close in missiles because RAM development started back in the mid 90's.

-S

Any attack against Iran with anything other than a B-2 with that much SAM cover is simply fail. Iran has been preparing for such a battle for ages. And they still have plenty of experience from their war with Iraq.

Do NOT underestimate their abilities. Less you have an Iranian version of the phoenix jammed up your butt.

Any air battle in Iran (Assuming Iran Declared war on one of our treaty allies) Is going to be long and difficult and we will have losses. Iraq was a cakewalk.

Thats what has me worried with all those Iran warhawks still out there. People think that we can "quell" Iran just as fast as we could Iraq and that is BS all the way. Iran has weapons AND people willing and wanting to die using them.

How many seasoned combat veterns with kills are still flying on any side ?

That's the question to answer.

The US and Brits would overwhelm by sheer numbers today.

Yeah. It's not so much a question of "could we beat them;" the answer to that is obviously yes, pound for pound Western inventories and capabilities outclass Iran several times. Ask instead "could we beat them before we suffer an unacceptable amount of casualties as perceived by governments or public support." My guess, given the mediocre outcome so far in Afghanistan and Iraq and indecisive support for an incursion into Iran, is that this threshold would be relatively low.

More importantly, could we beat them without paying a crippling financial price ?

Abolutely not

The price in simple bombs used to toss info Sam facilities will be astronomical. We nearly ran out in simple Iraq. With Iran you will have ALOT more misses as fighters have to jink and flare to get away from the many AAA and light Sam batteries.

The ground war will be EXTREMELY expensive. We will lose many tanks we have to run many flights and operations and lose many helos before we secure even half the country. They are ready for such a fight and we can spare no cost in the quest to win even marginally quickly.

Iraq was a very very light war. Iran will be a heavy war. And thus to support a heavy war will mean heavy treasure use. Assuming they invade an allied nation. Everyone will have to chip in to win such a conflict.


Now of course this will never happen because Iran is about to get Iraq as far as resources go as soon as we leave. They have won as far as they are concerned and their pissing contests with Israel will go no further. Look for them to suddenly "give up" on the nuclear issue when the time is right (They will squeeze us for some resources as they all do before they stop)

Don't forget the ~100 000 injured (some with extremely serious head injuries that require treatment as long as they live) and the other coalition dead & injured. Also I think it's kinda unfair to not notice the soldiers who have completed their tour, once, twice or even three times. Plenty of those guys around, and I don't think they will be going back there. One should not see their input as nothing, right?

The comparisons to WW 2 seem a bit out of place IMHO, or is this yet another ploy to try to make this debacle seem somehow less bloody then it already is?