Saddams' SAM sites
- Thread starter eaf-f16
- Start date
Iraq lacked several vital key components - the main being long-range SAM's, the other being mobile SAM's.
Sure. Older Iraqi SAM's was heavely affected by newer USA EW. But very low USA losses was mostly due to already said things - USAF could destroy any discovered SAM and any radar site from unreachable distance.
Sure not. First, they are 3 generations ahead. This also include EW resistance. Second, S-400 range... and both are highly mobile so tomahawks and JDAMS will not work here. It is like in any other high-tech weapon area - how many chances do you think will have M-48 against T-90A? And how many chances M1A2SEP against T-55?
P.S. Tor and Buk's alone will not pose much threat to USAF as they lack the range. It is S-300 component what will add real threat. But S-300 also will need Tor/Buk/Tunguska for last mile protection.
Nobody knows what the true cababilities of the S400s are. I have a hard time believing when a missile system sold to Iran by Russia, is said to have the capability of destroying anything under the sun.
Regardless of an Iranian S400 system (and/or S300), they are Missiles defending all of the Iranian strategic sites (spead out all over), are not adaquate in numbers (IMO-and from what I've read/heard).
The US has enough cruise missiles in the theatre to overwhelm Iran's Air Defense. If every Iranian S400/S300 can kill every cruise missile every US cruise missile that Iran engages, Iran will run out of missiles very quickly, the US will have a "few" to spair. And that's just mentioning Cruise Missiles. The US, depending on its "strategery" can flood the skies with drones and other "junk" that will cause Iran to choose its targets, "wisely" (If that's possible).
None of this has even included american Air Power, which, I'm guessing will eliminate enough Iranian threats, Iran's choices will be narrowed very quickly. As far as their AF, Iran is surrounded on its east, west, south/sea, by the USAF and COL partner's. I again have my doubts about the strength of those piloting the Iranian AF.
I don't think Iran's navy will last long either.
I think the biggest threat I see is a retaliation attack by Iran on the Saudi/Gulf Oil Fields. Along with a Missile attack on Israel by Iran, Syria (she could also attck the oil fields), Hizbollah, and Hamas.
The US already has a multi-layered missile defense in the surrounding states.
Removing Assad and Syria (who also has at least S300s, Scuds and chem/bio weapons) from the equation would be huge. If the US makes it clear that his fate will be Sadaam's, if Assad were to retaliate aganst anyone, instead of leaving with his life and taking a flight to Moscow, Assad might finally get the message that neither Iran nor Hizbollah will be around as friendly neighbors.
There have been several reports of the Shihab-3 "somehow" making it's way to Lebanon (still under Iran's control)-- this is an "overkill" for target Israel, but puts Europe in range. Perhaps the reason for the push for ABM in Europe.
I think a simultanious attack by the US/COFs on Iran, and Israel on Hizbollah, would defeat and destroy the majority of Iranian weapon systems/Military. Iran isn't stupid and needs to delay until they are nuclear.
Not to get into polotics, but I don't think the US VP made the Statement today/yesterday (I believe), "The US/COFs will not allow Iran to attain nuclear capabilities."
Obviously this is-JMHO (we'll see).:unknown
Regardless of an Iranian S400 system (and/or S300), they are Missiles defending all of the Iranian strategic sites (spead out all over), are not adaquate in numbers (IMO-and from what I've read/heard).
The US has enough cruise missiles in the theatre to overwhelm Iran's Air Defense. If every Iranian S400/S300 can kill every cruise missile every US cruise missile that Iran engages, Iran will run out of missiles very quickly, the US will have a "few" to spair. And that's just mentioning Cruise Missiles. The US, depending on its "strategery" can flood the skies with drones and other "junk" that will cause Iran to choose its targets, "wisely" (If that's possible).
None of this has even included american Air Power, which, I'm guessing will eliminate enough Iranian threats, Iran's choices will be narrowed very quickly. As far as their AF, Iran is surrounded on its east, west, south/sea, by the USAF and COL partner's. I again have my doubts about the strength of those piloting the Iranian AF.
I don't think Iran's navy will last long either.
I think the biggest threat I see is a retaliation attack by Iran on the Saudi/Gulf Oil Fields. Along with a Missile attack on Israel by Iran, Syria (she could also attck the oil fields), Hizbollah, and Hamas.
The US already has a multi-layered missile defense in the surrounding states.
Removing Assad and Syria (who also has at least S300s, Scuds and chem/bio weapons) from the equation would be huge. If the US makes it clear that his fate will be Sadaam's, if Assad were to retaliate aganst anyone, instead of leaving with his life and taking a flight to Moscow, Assad might finally get the message that neither Iran nor Hizbollah will be around as friendly neighbors.
There have been several reports of the Shihab-3 "somehow" making it's way to Lebanon (still under Iran's control)-- this is an "overkill" for target Israel, but puts Europe in range. Perhaps the reason for the push for ABM in Europe.
I think a simultanious attack by the US/COFs on Iran, and Israel on Hizbollah, would defeat and destroy the majority of Iranian weapon systems/Military. Iran isn't stupid and needs to delay until they are nuclear.
Not to get into polotics, but I don't think the US VP made the Statement today/yesterday (I believe), "The US/COFs will not allow Iran to attain nuclear capabilities."
Obviously this is-JMHO (we'll see).:unknown
USA cant do anything in the long run to prevent Iran from aquiring A-Bomb - short of occupation. Just bombing will not do it, if anything it will only accelerate Iranian nuclear weapon build-up. But even IF USA will manage Iran occupation - there wil be instantly 10 other countries what WILL accelerate its nuclear development. We already seen this after Iraq - after Iran that trend will become even more apparent.
P.S. No sane amount of S-300/Tor/Su-30 or F-22 will save Iran against USAF. The question is only how much resources USA will be forces to commit.
I think the US can do a whole lot, without occupying any of Iran. We can not only take out their entire military and air defenses which they've invested Billions and Billions in. We can take out as much as we know RE: their nuke program... which they've invested billions and billions in. We can do as much as possible to minimze civillian deaths, but at the same time when we're done with our "first operation," we need to let all the Iranians know, it's not about them, it's about their Gov't (we're not coming to occupy the country)... and we encourage the people of Iran to make their leadership disapear.
We'll set their nuclear program and missile program back, several years.
If/when there are any other problems, or if we detect anymore going on with their nulcear program, we'll be right back.
The people, like any population, will be pissed. But the peple of Iran have no real love for the Mullahs theri President or Gov't. The "moderates" in Iran's gov't are being purged, even Rafsanjani, who has an International warrant for is arrest for his ordering Iran/Hizbollah to do what they did in Argentina. Even he's to "Moderate" for this gov't.
There's no easy solution, perfect, or great option, but IMO, Iran being able to use nuclear blackmail (or a nuclear weapon), is the very worst option!
A message will be sent to SA and King Abdullah that Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz is the wrong answer to succeed him. It will also relieve the pressure the other regimes feel for building their own Nuclear Program. Those leaders are having a difficult enough time inside their country, they don't need a Nuclear program that can only caus e themseve's more trouble.
Is this a SAM thread or a "bomb iran" thread?
Saddam had a very good air defense network that we defeated in Gulf-1, and continued to defeat as Saddam continued playing his "screw you I didnt lose" games after the first war.
To this day I continue to see a pattern in INTL forums that downplays Yank EW and HARM capabilities. I wish I could delve deeper into this but I have to go shoot a wedding video. Tomorrow or Monday I hope to have time for this thread. The destruction of Saddams AD network is a fascinating story.
Saddam had a very good air defense network that we defeated in Gulf-1, and continued to defeat as Saddam continued playing his "screw you I didnt lose" games after the first war.
To this day I continue to see a pattern in INTL forums that downplays Yank EW and HARM capabilities. I wish I could delve deeper into this but I have to go shoot a wedding video. Tomorrow or Monday I hope to have time for this thread. The destruction of Saddams AD network is a fascinating story.
"Very good defence network?" - by what standards?
Iraq lacked:
1. Long range SAM's
2. Modern SAM's
3. Mobile SAM's
4. Training
Any of these points is more than enouth to ensure defeat against any modern AF.
You will not set AB program back just by bombing. Most relating facilities are build under mountains or earth. Even if you manage to set back Iran nuclear program several years back - Iran will just allocate much, much more resources to that program with complete patriotic support from its own population. NOONE LIKE TO GET BOMBED! Do not underestimate that. In the end, Iran may as well get real nuclear weapon FASTER than without bombing.
You're right, it's more of a SAM thread but the question came up, basically asking if "iranian" AD would be any better than Iraq's. 15 years after the first gulf-war, it's not like one side decided to heavily invest in upgrading their Air Defense while the other side thought the same exact weapons which worked more than a decade ad a half ago to defeat Iraq's AD systems would do the same to new systems (Hense, Iran/US).
At the time, Saddam did have a good air defense system/network (relative), it just didn't have much of a chance against "COL" capabilities.
Like you said, the different tactics and systems that the US/COL used during Gulf War I, to defeat/destroy Iraq's ADs is very interesting. I'll let you explain it though (I don't want to infringe).
I'm not sure that post Gulf War I, Saddam had anything that really consisted of an AD network. I think it was for te most part that he had "independent" leftovers (smart Iraqis that never turned their radar on during the war). Saddam would have loved to get his hands on an american/british pilot, and basically let those who were manning the the SAM sites, "I can have you replaced (Saddam style) or you can take your chances with the American/Brit's. At least they'll make it quick for you, and you have a 'Chance' of becoming an Iraqi hero if you actually hit an air-craft."
Make sure to get paid before "shooting" someone's wedding video!
I disagree. Iran would have to have an extensive parallel program going on, which there really is no evidece of (anything is possible but not likely). It's unlikey that known Iranian nuclear scientists and Russian counterparts, are "Bait." One must also believe that Iran has several above ground and/or known facilities that were basically built to be destroyed (that's very, very, expensive). Iran, is allocating as much investment in its nuclear program as it can and as fast as it can right now. It's not like they could move any faster than they're trying to right now.
Plus, Iran has had to invest heavily in advanced AD systems to "protect," not only their nuclear faclities, but their entire military (that they've put a whole lot of money into), which "the nuclear program" has indirectly invited to be destroyed.
There's no doubt that large parts of Iran's nuclear program has been built underground, the Satalite photos and IAEA inspector reports (of discovered undergond sites), show/detail most "known" facilities are built under "dirt on dirt." These sites aren't easy to get at, but it's not like the US/COFs don't have the ability.
Destroying Iran's Missile program is a top priority too. They're determined to have ICBMs. Why? Israel is threir threat, right? What does Europe or the US have to do with that threat? Iran needs ICBMs as a delivery system for nukes.
Setting back both of these programs and "destroying Iran's military," sets back Iranian nuclear aspirations many, many, years. Iran would have to wiegh the incredible price of the loss of its investmet, and trying to come up with the tremendous investment once agin to rebuild their program (while remaining under sanctions), vs. moving forward as a country.
As I said, the people of Iran would be Pissed. Nobody likes being bombed. However, nobody likes to be bombed over and over again. Unlike most surrounding Arab states, Iran (Persian) is much more nationalistic (opposed to tribal). The vast majority of Iran's very young population, hates their Gov't for many reasons, including putting Iran in this predicament. Ahmadinajad has successfully been purging what's left of those who were considered the "moderate's" in Iran's Gov't. Again, if Iran is allowed to get NWs, not only will nuclear blackmail be a hige problem for the world/west, there will be major problems in the region (as if there aren't enough now). SA's next King or Crown Prince will then be (the now) Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz (read about him). At this point the west can kiss all and any influence in the ME goodbye. If oil is expensive now prohibitive now, Iran going nuclear will make oil completely cost prohibitve to the West or even Unavailable.
So Back to Missile Defense
, the S-400/S-300-Tor,Buk... IMO can and will be defeated by the new generation(s) of US/CFs capabilities/tactics/assets.I have no doubt that the US is able to overcome the Iranian AD with ease and is also able to destroy most static targets including a massive amount of Irans overall infrastructure. Not to talk of sinking the navy very fast.
Destroying the armed land forces is something else.
Without the threat of a ground invasion thre is no need for Iran to mass and maneuver their formations.
The Kosovo air campaign showed us that under such circumstances it is very complicated to do serious damage to ground forces scattered and hidden in the landscape.
Even when the US decides to go low instead of avoiding the trashfire.
Every air campaign against enemy land forces needs at least the threat of a land invasion to force the enemy to move and mass their assets.
And during such an air campaign old style AAA without radar and hidden till the last moment could be a real pain in the ass for US air assets.
Destroying the armed land forces is something else.
Without the threat of a ground invasion thre is no need for Iran to mass and maneuver their formations.
The Kosovo air campaign showed us that under such circumstances it is very complicated to do serious damage to ground forces scattered and hidden in the landscape.
Even when the US decides to go low instead of avoiding the trashfire.
Every air campaign against enemy land forces needs at least the threat of a land invasion to force the enemy to move and mass their assets.
And during such an air campaign old style AAA without radar and hidden till the last moment could be a real pain in the ass for US air assets.
You are joking, right? USA openly threat bombing Iran, may be even with nuclear weapon!!! - and you say "Israel is the only threat"? What kind a strange reality perception one should have...
100% agree
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The advent of JDAM, JSOW and much more capable EO/IR targettting pod and radar systems I think would overcome much of these problems.
Plus I doubt Iran has quite so an accomodating "Countryside" in terms of Mountains, forests, nearly continuous heavy cloud etc as Bosnia enjoys...
Plus the US has the "all singing and all dancing" F-22 now which is of course utterly invincible...
JSOW needs the said massed formations to be really effective with its submunition and a JDAM is not better in hunting down enemy forces than a LGB or a Maverick.
There are for sure better radar and IR targeting assets but are they that better?
As to countryside. There are enough mountainious areas in Iran. And there are the cities. Unless you go in with ground forces or mass bombard cities in a Dresden style (With the same amount of civilian deaths) one could hide whole armies in big cities.
There are defenitely enough big cities and mountains in Iran.
And you have to compare the sheer size of Iran (1.636.000 m², 11% forests) with the cramped area of the Kosovo (11.877 m²).
A huge area to search...
But with the F-22 you are defenitely right! :nutkick
There are for sure better radar and IR targeting assets but are they that better?
As to countryside. There are enough mountainious areas in Iran. And there are the cities. Unless you go in with ground forces or mass bombard cities in a Dresden style (With the same amount of civilian deaths) one could hide whole armies in big cities.
There are defenitely enough big cities and mountains in Iran.
And you have to compare the sheer size of Iran (1.636.000 m², 11% forests) with the cramped area of the Kosovo (11.877 m²).
A huge area to search...
But with the F-22 you are defenitely right!
:nutkick