Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: cav58d on September 06, 2006, 12:45:44 PM
-
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/09/06/ap2995496.html
anyone know where I can find a pic?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Saeqeh-pic1.jpg)
Looks like a F-5 clone to me.
-
http://www.cao.ir/english/news/detail.asp?id=516
-
Originally posted by Viking
Looks like a F-5 clone to me.
That's what i was thinking. Added an extra vertical stabilzer. Wonder if they are building their own engines for it?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Looks like a F-5 clone to me.
Yep, looks like that to me too. Even the stab that was added looks like a copy of an F5
I not 100% sure Moot, but the plane in your link does really look like the other plane. hard to tell from the angles but the intakes and the canopy do not look similar to me
-
It makes sense for them, they know they might face sanctions and they dont want to be in the position of being reliant on foreign suppliers for their military.
Its clearly an F-5 derivitive of some sort. Cheap, and uncomplicated.
-
http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/09/06/ap2995496.html
The report said the bomber Saegheh is similar to the American F-18 fighter plane, but "more powerful." It also said the plane was "designed, optimized and improved by Iranian experts."
Wonder how they are measuring it's "power"? Thrust to weight? Payload? Avionics? My balsa wood r/c has a greater thrust to weight ratio than an F-18.
-
More pics here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90667
It sorta looks like a baby Hornet, but yes, the F-5 heritage is evident when seen side to side
-
those are all pics of an F-5 clone with a twin tail. But it you look at the link Moot has, the Saegheh does not look like an F-5, more like a F-22
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27eqeh
Saegheh (meaning lightning in persian, alternative spellings: Sa'eqeh), or Saegeh-80, is an Iranian single-seater jet fighter that was unveiled in July of 2004. It appears to be an F-5E airframe modified with canted twin tail fins.
The jet has been shown on state television making a test flight. No information about its operational capacity, technical specifications or production were given.
-
I am sure it will be toast in air on air battles to anything the Americans or Israelis have. However it may be a low cost suicide delivery system for a low tech nuclear bomb in an attack against an aircraft carrier group for example.
-
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135123
II. Fighter Aircraft
A. Azarakhsh Fighter
Iran shocked military observers in 1997 when it announced successfully test flying a domestically produced jet fighter, named the Azarakhsh. Iran currently has around 30 Azarakhsh fighters in its inventory.
B. Saegheh
A couple of months ago, Iran finally showed a test flight of its Saegheh jet fighter. A short clip of the Saegheh jet fighter in flight can be viewed at the following site:
http://www.iribnews.ir/media/tv/ch1/14-00/today.asf
(this is a 36 minute video, I havent watched it yet)
The Saegheh is a larger, twin finned, version of Northrop's F-5 fighter and despite modern avianics and other additions, still lags behind modern jet fighters in the West.
(think this is a description of the plane on Moot's link) However, Iran has announced plans for the development of a so-called 4th generation stealth fighter, the Shastudmuffinh. You can see a comparison of the Shastudmuffinh with the Russian MIG I-2000 advanced fighter at the following site (scroll down to the middle of the page, left corner, for pictures of mock versions of the Shastudmuffinh and comparison with the Russian fighter):
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news065.htm
-
I know they are developing some kind of jet that has it's wings configured so that they look like a circle with stub wings sticking out of it..Saw it in Jane's ATWA 2006 edition
Here's a pic
(http://www.cao.ir/photo/ax00001.gif)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/shastudmuffinh_iran_001.jpg)
-
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/shastudmuffinh_iran_001.jpg
-
those photos differ quite a bit especially the the photo posted by Viking.
-
think we or israel will get a chance to smoke em or will they be buried in the sand or flown to syria/lebanon when the fighting starts ...
-
That is a "Iranian Conquerer" to France...a "Iranian Threat" to Britain...and an "Iranian Target" to the U.S.
-
Originally posted by Viking
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Saeqeh-pic1.jpg)
Looks like a F-5 clone to me.
Not a clone, a clone would be an exact copy. Derivative is probably more accurate. To my knowledge, the US never built an F-5 with twin vertical stabs.
-
Since last weekend Iran is running a large Air Force Maneuvre.
Here are the pics of the Saegeh of the iranian TV:
Yes - the F-5 is obsolete - but I still like the design.
(http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2006/09/220381_orig.jpg)
(http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8506/ImageReports/8506140536/30_8506140536_L600.jpg)
-
They'll be no match to a sharply guided AMRAAM AIM-120
-
In any event I dont think its that newsworthy, after all Venezuala is getting Su-27s. Having fighters is not unexpected or uncommon.
Wether Iran could use them as part of an integrated air defence system, and sustain it in wartime is the real question.
I remember in the 1991 Gulf War some pundits going on about Iraqs large modern air force, that folded like a house of cards after the first day.
Bosnias modern air defence system that was easily defeated by NATO.
Ect.
-
it looks like a target.
-
didnt anybody in Iran see Top Gun? the F-14 rulz over the F-5
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
didnt anybody in Iran see Top Gun? the F-14 rulz over the F-5
:rofl :p
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
didnt anybody in Iran see Top Gun? the F-14 rulz over the F-5
Yes - but we also have some F-14.
And the F-14 pilot with the most air to air kills was an iranian.
Also a nice looking design.
(http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8506/ImageReports/8506110449/16_8506110449_L600.jpg)
-
Originally posted by babek-
Yes - but we also have some F-14.
And the F-14 pilot with the most air to air kills was an iranian.
I'm willing to bet that the only reason this is true is because the Iranian F-14s had much much more exposure to hapless Arab rivals(in their 60s era Migs) than did any other nation that operates the f-14.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I'm willing to bet that the only reason this is true is because the Iranian F-14s had much much more exposure to hapless Arab rivals(in their 60s era Migs) than did any other nation that operates the f-14.
Coulda had something to do with the US training the Iranians usta get too.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Coulda had something to do with the US training the Iranians usta get too.
Well, we are we're talking about F-14 pilots, almost all, if not all of whom, had US training of some kind. Within that group, this Iranian holds the record, and my point was that the fact that it was an Iranian that held the record, and not somebody else, was thanks exclusively to the amount of time they had to get the kills. Anyone else operating the Tomcat, given the same technology, training, and period of exposure, could have done the same or better.
If there had been an American Navy Pilot in action on the Iranian side for that whole time, the story would be different.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Most definitely, although I think the Tomcat's technical superiority over the enemy planes was the key element...
My point, however, was that the fact that it was an Iranian that held the record, and not somebody else, was thanks exclusively to the amount of time they had to get the kills. Anyone else operating the Tomcat, given the same technology, training, and period of exposure, could have done the same.
You are right: Major Zandi, who made the 9 kills (according US analysis) or 12 kills (according iranian sources) had much more time for his kills.
He was trained by the USA as a pilot of the imperial air force. Also he was an enemy of the mullah regime which put him to a position where he had to fight two wars at the same time: One against the arabs of Saddam who were invading Iran and the other against the pro-Khomeini pilots of the IRIAF - especially his rival Badii.
But he was a true patriot and fought under this circumstances and often badly outnumbered and with lacking spare party for the handful operating planes of the IRIAF for full 8 years. Saddam - on the other hand - was the good guy in these days.
Mr. Rumsfeld was traveling to Bagdad, shaking the hand of this good boy and even things like the attack of the USS Stark by an iraqi Super Etendard with its Exocet-missile - killing more than 30 US soldiers - was forgiven in those days.
So Zandi was not only fighting against vintage russian made planes but also against european designs like the Mirage. And one of his kills was a Mirage F1.
He survived the war with the rank of a Lt. Colonel and died a few years later in a car accident. And until his death he opposed the mullah regime.
So that was someone an outstanding man because of his behavior in both wars he was fighting bravely.
And to avoid any misunderstandings. I have no doubt that our air force will be wiped out within some hours against an excellent trained and superior air force like the one of the USA. But do you really think that the wars of today are fought like old knight tournaments with plane against plane or tank against tank?
Still I like the iranian new plane - because it looks cool. But I miss the old camouflage pattern of the F-14. Now they look like all F-14´s.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Yes - but we also have some F-14.
We?
Are you a Persian living in Germany?
-
Originally posted by Viking
We?
Are you a Persian living in Germany?
Probably to lazy to pray to allah 7 times a day. ;)
-
Originally posted by babek-
But do you really think that the wars of today are fought like old knight tournaments with plane against plane or tank against tank?
Not at all. If that were the case, technology and tactics would play less of a role than it does. As things are today, you're far more likely to get hit by something you never saw coming, and a fair fight, by modern standards, is one that a smart army would strive to avoid.
But, then again, I think the Tomcat was a pretty good embodiment of that doctrine. It was the first plane, if I recall, that could fire on up to 6 beyond-visual-range targets simultaeously, and with the Pheonix, no less. In the hands of a competant pilot, it would have been anything but a fair fight--which is exactly what the designers had in mind.
-
But I miss the old camouflage pattern of the F-14. Now they look like all F-14´s
Now most of em look like junk..Just so they can keep a few flyin'..Iranian F-14..not even briefed as a threat these days.
-
i wonder how many USN pilots are thinking of going mercenary & flying for iran?
the tought of a target rich enviornment must give some of them a giant boner
-
The report said the bomber Saegheh is similar to the American F-18 fighter plane, but "more powerful." It also said the plane was "designed, optimized and improved by Iranian experts."
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
didnt anybody in Iran see Top Gun? the F-14 rulz over the F-5
Get your facts right! Those weren't F-5s, they were Mig-28s! :mad:
-
Knowing how fighter jets love parts, those Iranian F-14s must be much older versions....and surely many grouned due to lack of replacement parts?
At my local Civial Air Patrol chapter, we have a guy from Iran. He was here, going thru fighter training in F-4s when the Shah was toppled. He managed to get his family here and opted to stay here. Super nice guy, very sharp pilot too.
-
40 years ago Northrop evolved the F-5 into a twin tailed configuration. Today we call it a Hornet.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I know they are developing some kind of jet that has it's wings configured so that they look like a circle with stub wings sticking out of it..Saw it in Jane's ATWA 2006 edition
Here's a pic
(http://www.cao.ir/photo/ax00001.gif)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/shastudmuffinh_iran_001.jpg)
All I gotta say is PWNED...
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060607-F-7049H-002.jpg)
-
I thought all the Iranian F-14's mysteriously quit working in 1979.
-
Wow...What a tiny cockpit
-
Originally posted by rpm
I thought all the Iranian F-14's mysteriously quit working in 1979.
There's an issue of the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine that has an article about the Iranian's use of the F-14s during the Iran - Iraq war. Very informative, basically when the TomCat lit off the radar the Iraqi's began yanking and banking for the desert floor and running back to Baghdad.
-
(http://engineering.wpafb.af.mil/photo/f-22awe.jpg)
My money is on the F22 Raptor that will smoke Iranians.
:aok
Mac
-
Originally posted by babek-
Yes - but we also have some F-14.
And the F-14 pilot with the most air to air kills was an iranian.
Also a nice looking design.
(http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8506/ImageReports/8506110449/16_8506110449_L600.jpg)
Not more than one or two of the Iranian F-14's remains operational today. They were sabotaged when the U.S. Contractors left Iran in 1979 and have had no access to replacement parts.
They are big pretty sun-shades today.
-
I watched Top Gun, those F-5's and Kfir's smoked the F-14's. Not to mention wasting F-16's in Iron Eagle AND Iron Eagle II.
So an F-5 with twin tails is definitely going to PWN that F22 (as long as the F-22 pilot doesn't listen to Queen)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Wonder how they are measuring it's "power"? Thrust to weight? Payload? Avionics? My balsa wood r/c has a greater thrust to weight ratio than an F-18.
It has the power of Allah! Unfortunately that means it stops anything it's doing and points towards Mecca five times a day.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Not more than one or two of the Iranian F-14's remains operational today. They were sabotaged when the U.S. Contractors left Iran in 1979 and have had no access to replacement parts.
They are big pretty sun-shades today.
Wrong - check this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Iranian-F-14-Tomcat-Units-in-Combat-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841767875/sr=8-2/qid=1157611961/ref=sr_1_2/002-5675283-2409642?ie=UTF8&s=books
The iranians managed very fast (motivated by the invasion attempt of Saddams arabs) to bring the F-14 back to work. Not all the 79 F-14´s, because many were used to deliver spare parts for the other planes in the first years of the war. Later the spare part problem was solved - so the number was growing.
During the 8 year Iran-Iraq war iranian F-14 shot down more than 150 iraqi planes and helicopters.
Read the book - it has some interesting details which may surprise you.
But again: They are useless in a war against US-airforce. Any IRIAF-plane would be - even if the IRIAF would have the same planes in the same technical shape like the US they still would have lesser training quality.
The important news of the iranian F-5 Saegeh plane is, that Iran managed to build a jet fighter in Iran. So they are learning more and more, which is good for the technical development. Even the new cars made in Iran look far better than the old designs
(http://www.automotriz.net/2006/articulos/saipa-141/iran-samand-azul.jpg)
The same with the F-14. They simly look cool.
And the iranian war films are better than Top Gun, because they show real MiGs as enemy planes instead of black F-5´s.
Many of the obsolete iraqi planes which fled once to Iran were sent as a present to the iranian film industries.
"Attack on H5" is one of my favorite films - although in this film the heros were flying F4 Phantoms. But also F-14´s and F-5´s were shown in this film. On the iraqi side MiG-21 and Su-7 and Su-20 were shown.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Not more than one or two of the Iranian F-14's remains operational today. They were sabotaged when the U.S. Contractors left Iran in 1979 and have had no access to replacement parts.
Yeah right..:rolleyes:
You accuse them of seeking nuclear weapons, and yet you think that they can't reverse engineer some service parts for F-14?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Probably to lazy to pray to allah 7 times a day. ;)
:)
No - neither I am singing Halleyuyah and believe in the concept that the son of god is born by a virgin and that when I die I will sit on a whit cloud with wings and playing ancient music instruments nor am I wearing funny caps and hair-Styles and nodding like a spastican in front of a wall nor I am expecting to join a paradise filled with virgin-women.
It would be nice if I could believe in the concept of religions -(if so I must admit that I would prefer the virgin-women option rather than sitting all the day on a cloud and making music), but thats not the case.
So I changed my religious status to "atheist" when I turned 18.
And I was neither killed, whipped or punished by the iranian officials. I just had to pay the money for the changing of this in my papers.
And yes - I live most time of the year in Germany but also spend much time in Iran (2005 i spent 7 months in Germany, 3 in Iran and the other 2 in other countries like Spain, Egypt or Canada). Both - Iran and Germany - are great nations with a proud history and culture and I am happy to have both passports.
And no - I neither voted for Merkel or Ahmadinedjad in the elections.
:)
-
What is with the Iranians these days?
Would have thought there was something better to do than arming up and nuking up.
Iraq has been elimited as a potent enemy, and Uncle Sam shows a habit of keeping other's fingers away from the nukes, so forgive me, but I think this Ahmadinedjad is just nuts.
-
Originally posted by Angus
What is with the Iranians these days?
Would have thought there was something better to do than arming up and nuking up.
Iraq has been elimited as a potent enemy, and Uncle Sam shows a habit of keeping other's fingers away from the nukes, so forgive me, but I think this Ahmadinedjad is just nuts.
1. Yes - presidents who are deeply religious and think that they are doing good things for the world are really nuts.
2. Maybe the iranians have seen the following facts:
Afghanistan:
- no nukes
- bad bad terror regime
- attacked with UN-legitimation and with the announcement that democracy, freedom and human rights would come after the liberation.
- result: Civil war, 2000 dead civilians per month, world prime drug producer and no freedom for women who even wear the Burkha in Kabul.
Iraq:
- no nukes
- bad bad terror regime
- attacked without UN-legitimation, but with the announcement that democracy, freedom and human rights would come after the liberation.
- result: Civil war, 2000 dead civilians per month, Abu Ghraib and other human right installations and so on.
North-Korea
- nukes
- bad bad terror regime
- not attacked (maybe because of the nukes ?)
Now.... as the bad bad terror regime in Iran - what would be your cconclusion to avoid to be attacked?
-
Hehe maybe they should see this:
Iraq trying to get nukes = Iraq gets screwed
Recent example from the neighbourhood.
-
:)
Yes - but Iran is not a small flat tabletop desert country with 15 million people who were enemies since Iraq was artificially created after WW1.
I would like to see the mullahregime kicked out of Iran.
But without a full invasion that will not happen. In contrary they will get stronger when Iran is attacked.
The same happened when the arabs attacked Iran while it was in the middle of inner political fightings after the Shah and his terrorregime were kicked out of Iran. When Saddam attacked all inner political fighting ended and the Khomeini regime had full power.
I fear that attacks against some installations will only help the mullahs to stay longer in power in Iran.
-
It's an old trick.
Make an enemy for the people to unite.
Or
Make an enemy that you can blame for everything.
Anyway, wasting all that energy for armory and nukes is just going to turn out bad.
Their grip might get stronger if Iran was to be attacked, and their grip would still remain somewhat if Iran would be routed.
My thought is that if this guy remains it's bound to happen. And as for the USA viewpoint, they rather want that nut cracked than armed with a nuke.
Just my cents...
-
Originally posted by babek-
I fear that attacks against some installations will only help the mullahs to stay longer in power in Iran.
that is only if we attack the installations first ...
the first wave of attacks should be on the heads of Iran without CNN fanfare .. but sadly it will not be ..
-
Originally posted by babek-
:)
No - neither I am singing Halleyuyah and believe in the concept that the son of god is born by a virgin and that when I die I will sit on a whit cloud with wings and playing ancient music instruments nor am I wearing funny caps and hair-Styles and nodding like a spastican in front of a wall nor I am expecting to join a paradise filled with virgin-women.
It would be nice if I could believe in the concept of religions -(if so I must admit that I would prefer the virgin-women option rather than sitting all the day on a cloud and making music), but thats not the case.
So I changed my religious status to "atheist" when I turned 18.
And I was neither killed, whipped or punished by the iranian officials. I just had to pay the money for the changing of this in my papers.
And yes - I live most time of the year in Germany but also spend much time in Iran (2005 i spent 7 months in Germany, 3 in Iran and the other 2 in other countries like Spain, Egypt or Canada). Both - Iran and Germany - are great nations with a proud history and culture and I am happy to have both passports.
And no - I neither voted for Merkel or Ahmadinedjad in the elections.
:)
Please could you tell me if this information is wrong, or how should I interpret it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#In_Islam
A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate)
Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania.
I'm just curious. Thx.
-
Originally posted by Sombra
Please could you tell me if this information is wrong, or how should I interpret it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#In_Islam
I'm just curious. Thx.
I can only tell you my personal story about this.
When I was born I was registered as shi.ite iranian moslem like my parents. That was during the Shah reign. My parents were no religious fanatics - although both were believing in Islam they decided that neither my brother nor I have to learn about religion. So both we havent visited religious schools or lessons or something like that. We should decide by ourself if we want to learn about religion or not.
When the revolution started in Iran I was 13. I am sure that there would have been great problems if I made my decison to put down my status as shi.ite moslem in the first years of the revolution then I would have got many problems - that was a really mad time - especially the first year.
But 5 years later I had only to pay some money to some officials and everything was OK. I was also not defined as a heretic and also have not got any problems when I am dealing with iranian officials like from the embassy if I am not in iran or the others when i am in iran.
My aunt switched from Islam to christianity. That caused more problems, but according to the iranian constitution there are 4 religions defined as the religion of believers:
Islam
Christianity
Judaism
Zoroastrism.
In Iran you get extreme problems if you are member of the Bahai religion.
But I havent seen that christians, jews or zoroastrians were hunted or threatened because of their religion. Or myself for putting down shi.ite islam.
Maybe this WIKI-topic about apostasy in Islam is more for sunnite islam.
As I mentioned I dont know much about religions - so I am not the specialist to ask about this - sorry :)
-
Politics and religion..always a problem...
-
IIRC (I'm sure many here know the exact details)...
A pair of F22s went up against a group (12?) of F15s in a mock combat. Final score was 12 to 0. That was against some of the USAF's finest, no doubt whatsoever more capable than the best Iranian pilots, who, if they were trained by the US would have to be over 55 years old today.
Iranian Air Force's best bet with their new fighter should a conflict arise between them and the USAF/USN would be to run to Syria, kind of like Sadaam did with his air force in 1991, assuming they could get that far without flying over Iraq.
-
Originally posted by babek-
In Iran you get extreme problems if you are member of the Bahai religion.
But I havent seen that christians, jews or zoroastrians were hunted or threatened because of their religion. Or myself for putting down shi.ite islam.
Maybe this WIKI-topic about apostasy in Islam is more for sunnite islam.
As I mentioned I dont know much about religions - so I am not the specialist to ask about this - sorry :)
According to this it appears that there is an active, but perhaps somewhat covert, effort to eliminate at least the christian faith.
http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/world/ira1.htm
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
IIRC (I'm sure many here know the exact details)...
A pair of F22s went up against a group (12?) of F15s in a mock combat. Final score was 12 to 0. That was against some of the USAF's finest, no doubt whatsoever more capable than the best Iranian pilots, who, if they were trained by the US would have to be over 55 years old today.
Iranian Air Force's best bet with their new fighter should a conflict arise between them and the USAF/USN would be to run to Syria, kind of like Sadaam did with his air force in 1991, assuming they could get that far without flying over Iraq.
Yeah - thats cool. F22 or some X-wing-fighters hunting the air force of the dark side and forcing them to flee to their greatest enemies - the arabs.
When you turn off the SciFi-Channel and rejoin reality you should ask yourself what will happen - for example - in Iraq?
The shi.ites are the majority of the iraqi people. In both elections they voted like their religious leader ordered them to do. They joined the new military and police of iraq while they are under attack of suicide bombers of sunnite Al Kaida terrorists.
The leader whom orders they obey is Grandajatollah Sistani. An iranian.
So there is a risk that in case of an attack against Iran he will decide to act also in this conflict.
And thats only the question of possible political consequences in one country. The situation is far more complicated and some superduperplanes will not be able to solve the conflict.
-
Originally posted by lukster
According to this it appears that there is an active, but perhaps somewhat covert, effort to eliminate at least the christian faith.
http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/world/ira1.htm
Then one question:
Not about christians but about jews:
If the iranians are trying to eliminate other religions who are defined by their constitution as "believers" so why there are so many synagoges (i hope its the right word - i mean the jewish churches) in Teheran? And why new are being build there when Iran is a second Nazi Empire?
Or another thing:
The christian bishops in iran demanded from the Islamic regime that the film "Da Vinci Code" will be forbidden in Iran. reason: The film tells that the holy man Jesus has a relation ship with the prostitute Maria or something like that.
And the government followed this demand of the christian leaders and ordered that the film is forbidden in Iran.
Also a strange behavior if they want to harm the iranian christians.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Yeah - thats cool. F22 or some X-wing-fighters hunting the air force of the dark side and forcing them to flee to their greatest enemies - the arabs.
When you turn off the SciFi-Channel and rejoin reality you should ask yourself what will happen - for example - in Iraq?
The shi.ites are the majority of the iraqi people. In both elections they voted like their religious leader ordered them to do. They joined the new military and police of iraq while they are under attack of suicide bombers of sunnite Al Kaida terrorists.
The leader whom orders they obey is Grandajatollah Sistani. An iranian.
So there is a risk that in case of an attack against Iran he will decide to act also in this conflict.
Okay, so the Iraqi arabs are the "greatest enemey" of the Iranians yet the Iraqis take their orders from the Iranians. Yet you say I'm the one that has been watching too much Sci-fi. Thanks for clearing that up:rolleyes:
All I am saying is that if a conflict arises between the Iranian Air Force and the USAF/USN the Iranian Air Force will be nothing more than smoking craters within a day, unless they flee. Period. I am not talking politics or long term counterinsurgency or police-actions here. The US military has proven to be incapable of carrying those types of actions out, mostly due to political leadership (or lack thereof), for over 50 years. I am talking about a conflict between air forces here, it might not even last a day.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Also a strange behavior if they want to harm the iranian christians.
The article I linked does not imply that the average christian is being persecuted as in a bodily threat but rather that the christian church is being smothered out of existence. The only physical imprisonments listed were of chruch leaders.
The only reference given that an official execution was carried out for apostacy was in 1989. Perhaps it is no longer being carried out in an official capacity. As I already mentioned, the direct persecution listed has been only against church leaders. I would take that as evidence that the Islamic leaders are not secure enough in their positions to enforce Islamic law as I believe they would like to.
I'll have to get back with you on the jews.
-
Babek, think of it like this:
1. The USA considers Iran (now) as well as they did with Iraq to be a threat to them.
2. USA goes and knocks out the Iranian nuke effort, with some other things as bonus.
3. The S#!t hits the fan, and everybody is fighting everybody down there.
4. Current threat to the USA is eliminated.
They've done some spanking before.
Do you belive they'd do it again?
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Okay, so the Iraqi arabs are the "greatest enemey" of the Iranians yet the Iraqis take their orders from the Iranians. Yet you say I'm the one that has been watching too much Sci-fi. Thanks for clearing that up:rolleyes:
All I am saying is that if a conflict arises between the Iranian Air Force and the USAF/USN the Iranian Air Force will be nothing more than smoking craters within a day, unless they flee. Period. I am not talking politics or long term counterinsurgency or police-actions here. The US military has proven to be incapable of carrying those types of actions out, mostly due to political leadership (or lack thereof), for over 50 years. I am talking about a conflict between air forces here, it might not even last a day.
In one of the mails above I gave the IRIAF a few hours against the US air force - so we agree in this point.
Even if Iran would use exactly the same planes their pilots would be wiped from the sky because of the superior US-tactics and training.
The idea that they would flee to arabs is ... .at least strange for an iranian.
Very strange.
Arabs are considered as the worst enemies of Iran. That does not stop the iranians to use some of them for their own goals but if you say "arab" to an iranian you are insulting him.
The iranians fooled succesfully Saddam by luring his planes in Iran. Saddam really believed that he would get the 133 planes back. Maybe he was watching the arab sci fi channel :)
But again: We agree in the fact that the IRIAF would not be able to fight against the USAF.
-
I wouldn't say that Judaism is exactly flourshing in Iran.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
-
Originally posted by Angus
Babek, think of it like this:
1. The USA considers Iran (now) as well as they did with Iraq to be a threat to them.
2. USA goes and knocks out the Iranian nuke effort, with some other things as bonus.
3. The S#!t hits the fan, and everybody is fighting everybody down there.
4. Current threat to the USA is eliminated.
They've done some spanking before.
Do you belive they'd do it again?
Yes - maybe you are right.
Ironicly most of the young iranians (and 70% of the iranians are 25 or younger) dont see the USA as an enemy. This will change after the US attack. Then we will have again a generation of fanatics and to wait 15 years for the next attempt.
Your point 3 is the nightmare. Everyone thinks that Iran is a great danger because of the possible nuclear developments.
I believe that Pakistan will be the muslim nation which presents the real danger.
They have already nukes, their government is corrupt and can be overthrown, they have fanatic sunnits.
Also tehy were and they still are the main supporters of the Taliban. The northern area of Pakistan is full with "religious schools" where the next Taliban terrorists are created.
But no one cares.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Yes - maybe you are right.
Ironicly most of the young iranians (and 70% of the iranians are 25 or younger) dont see the USA as an enemy. This will change after the US attack. Then we will have again a generation of fanatics and to wait 15 years for the next attempt.
Your point 3 is the nightmare. Everyone thinks that Iran is a great danger because of the possible nuclear developments.
I believe that Pakistan will be the muslim nation which presents the real danger.
They have already nukes, their government is corrupt and can be overthrown, they have fanatic sunnits.
Also tehy were and they still are the main supporters of the Taliban. The northern area of Pakistan is full with "religious schools" where the next Taliban terrorists are created.
But no one cares.
Who is no one?
Certainly many in the US do care. What would you have us do though? Currently there is a friendly government in power. While it may not be able to prevent the spread of the terrorist mentailty within it's own borders, letting the Taliban take over completely would be much worse. Too much interference by the US in Pakistan would undoubtedly drive more into the arms of the Taliban.
-
"Your point 3 is the nightmare. Everyone thinks that Iran is a great danger because of the possible nuclear developments."
Exactly why I don't like the guy in charge. He's paddling like crazy into a totally predictable madness.
Total nightmare. Absolutely.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Ironicly most of the young iranians (and 70% of the iranians are 25 or younger) dont see the USA as an enemy. This will change after the US attack. Then we will have again a generation of fanatics and to wait 15 years for the next attempt.
so tell them to do something about the cheekbones running their country before he gets them all killed ..
why do we have to be concerned about future generations? we didn't worry with japan or germany after they got their arses handed to them..
why? because they are cheekboness themselves ..
this fighting wars with kit gloves and cnn media coverage has got to go if we ever expect to accomplish anything lasting
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this fighting wars with kit gloves and cnn media coverage has got to go ever expect to accomplish anything lasting
Exacly, but take out the "lasting" part. WIth our method of doing counterinsurgency and "police-actions" (whatever the hell that means if you are using the military), I'd say we don't even accomplish anything at all except encourage more of whatever we try to stop. In Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo we did accomplish much, we conclusively convinced entire nations/cultures/generations that they should not jack with the USofA.
We as a nation can be wonderful friends and trading partners or we can be fearful enemies, at least that used to be true. Now tin-hat dictators ensure their power over their opressed peoples by poking us with sticks.
-
The iranian policy is more and more anti-west/anti-semite,The US and Israel must destroy iranian nuclear facilities, with all the risks involved
Ezekiel 38. shows clear that Persia/Iran is going to atack Israel, and they will better do it without nukes. This war predicted here didn't take place yet, was predicted over 2500 years ago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion by Gog
38 The word of the LORD came to me: 2Mortal, set your face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Prophesy against him 3and say: Thus says the Lord God: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; 4I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws, and I will lead you out with all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed in full armor, a great company, all of them with shield and buckler, wielding swords. 5Persia, Ethiopia,a and Put are with them, all of them with buckler and helmet; 6Gomer and all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remotest parts of the north with all its troops--many peoples are with you
-
Ghi why not run for president, in time for the TV debate with Ahmadinejad?
-
Thanks ghi for proving that not only Ahmadinedjad is a religious fanatic.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Thanks ghi for proving that not only Ahmadinedjad is a religious fanatic.
he is the only one stating the holocaust didn't happen and that Israel & the west needs to be destroyed - yes, I think he is the one to watch out for
-
Originally posted by babek-
Yes - maybe you are right.
Ironicly most of the young iranians (and 70% of the iranians are 25 or younger) dont see the USA as an enemy. This will change after the US attack. Then we will have again a generation of fanatics and to wait 15 years for the next attempt.
So Iran is the schoolyard bully, who runs his mouth, and then when trounced for his mouth, he gets offended.
They can shove their stupid Jihad where the sun doesn't shine. I would LOVE to see a few countries just flat out nuked.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Bosnias modern air defence system that was easily defeated by NATO.
Bosnia's?
NATO had to "shoot down" their own MiG-29 in Bosnia 1999, to show how "aggressive" Serbs were.
NATO failed to completely supress Yugoslavian air defense in 99, it's a fact. Whole NATO block fighting a country starved by 10 years of sanctions - and an utter failure.
-
Yes Boroda that pretty much sums it up. The Serbs even shot down a US stealth fighter, and after the conflict ended their army was still intact.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
IIRC (I'm sure many here know the exact details)...
A pair of F22s went up against a group (12?) of F15s in a mock combat. Final score was 12 to 0. That was against some of the USAF's finest, no doubt whatsoever more capable than the best Iranian pilots, who, if they were trained by the US would have to be over 55 years old today.
Iranian Air Force's best bet with their new fighter should a conflict arise between them and the USAF/USN would be to run to Syria, kind of like Sadaam did with his air force in 1991, assuming they could get that far without flying over Iraq.
Ed,
I think I remember reading some comments from one of the F-15 agressor pilots.
He said (paraphrasing) "My day consists of an early morning launch, fly to the range, die a couple times, hit the tanker, return to range,die a couple more times, rtb. Afternoon sortie, more of the same."
The F-22 has a data link to the awacs. He can run a radar intercept without ever emmiting a single wave. The enemy never knows he's there till the doors open and the radar missile goes active. By that time the enemy is in such poor tactical position that evading the missile is impossible as the PK approachs 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBUmRd4hKlg
USAF vs IRAF = shooting fish in a barrel
Regards
Sun
-
F-22? getting a bit ahead of ourselves arent we? Its not going to be fought with F-22s.
It would be an F-15/F-16/F-18/Harrier contest vs whatever they had...
And the tactic of doing an approach without going radar active and using AWACS is standard NATO doctrine, you dont need F-22s for that either. You just need AWACS, tankers, fighters and jamming a/c (ECR Tornado, EA-6).
-
Boroda.
NATO flew over Serbia AT WILL, and their losses were miniscule. The Serbs did ever worse than Iraq in 1991. The one time they did launch some fighters they were smoked by F-16s.
As to the politics of it, I will leave that for another time.
-
Originally posted by Squire
NATO flew over Serbia AT WILL, and their losses were miniscule.
Yes but they failed to destroy the Serb army occupying Kosovo. Simply because the Serbs refused to engage NATO except for ambushes and taking pot-shots.
-
The NATO air campaign against Serbia was mainly fought over Kosovo. The few airstrikes over Belgrade weren't even contested by the serbs. They prefered to conserve their strenght by hiding their forces, awaiting a ground invasion.
NATO failed miserably in Serbia/Kosovo. Allowing the Serb army to retreat intact (after they've done what they set out to do), and allowing Melosovic to remain in office as the President of Serbia.
-
Im talking about the NATO air campaign against Serbia, specifically Belgrade, and the relative ineffectiveness of their air defenses, despite having both modern systems and well trained crews. Once again "static" air defenses proved themsleves weak and innefectual.
NATO losses were 3 helicopters and 5 fixed wing a/c in the 1999 bombing campaign. 3rd rate Iraqi conscripts did better than that firing blind into the sky.
And I will ammend my post above, there were two occasions in 1999 that the Serbs were involved in air combat, losing both times. They also shot down their own a/c at least once.
"NATO had to "shoot down" their own MiG-29 in Bosnia 1999"
Really? well since only the Luftwaffe flew MiG-29s, and never deployed any in the campaign, how exactly did they manage to do that? Like all your posts you just blather on about ex-pat Soviet wannabe conspiracies to make yourselves feel better. :lol
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/tit...e=S2903~ser=COM
-
Originally posted by Squire
NATO losses were 3 helicopters and 5 fixed wing a/c in the 1999 bombing campaign. 3rd rate Iraqi conscripts did better than that firing blind into the sky.
Yes, including an F-117 (which the Iraqis didn't manage to shoot down), and still NATO failed its main objectives. In fact they failed ALL of them.
-
Wow, they downed a single F-117, well holy s***, I guess that spells the end for the USAF huh? Your too funny.
And the vaunted Serbia? they lost Kosovo, which is a UN protectorate, they recently lost Macedonia too, who doesnt want anything to do with them either (they voted independance) and are in power nowhere else in the region except Serbia proper.
And Slobodan Milosovich? (your hero I guess) right, where is he?, oh thats right he died in the Hague awaiting war crimes after being overthrown.
Tough break huh :( ?
:lol
-
None of which is the credit of the NATO air campaign. Kosovo was already lost before NATO got involved. The Serbs were just evacuating its people and doing some "clean up" (read: ethnic cleansing). They finished their objectives despite the NATO air campaign and withdrew to Serbia in good order and with minimal losses.
Macedonia left peacefully, and has nothing to do with the NATO campaign.
Milosevic got caught trying to fix the 2000 elections (two years after the NATO air campaign). After a civil uprising he chose to step down. Later the new Serbian government turned him over to Den Haag for crimes he allegedly committed during the Bosnian civil war (not Kosovo).
What did the NATO air campaign actually accomplish? I mean, besides bombing a refugee column (red tractor looks like an APC? :huh), fire missiles into neighboring countries, destroy bridges in Belgrade, and spectacularly bomb the Chinese embassy? :aok
Nothing.
Oh yes the NATO losses were minimal, and that is the only good thing about that whole sordid mess. Luckily none of our planes got shot down, but they might as well have been for all the good they did.
-
Originally posted by Squire
NATO losses were 3 helicopters and 5 fixed wing a/c in the 1999 bombing campaign. 3rd rate Iraqi conscripts did better than that firing blind into the sky.
3 choppers and 5 fixed wing - LOL in 1999 they had to admit only one loss - F-117. Maybe later we'll know real numbers? When Serbs showed an engine that was shot off the A-10 - NATO said that the plane "made a safe landing in Italy".
Originally posted by Squire
And I will ammend my post above, there were two occasions in 1999 that the Serbs were involved in air combat, losing both times. They also shot down their own a/c at least once.
I have read interviews with Serbian pilots - they flew several missions in the first day of aggression, and noone of them landed. In fact they understood it from the very beginning that fighting in such conditions meant no landing. I don't know about shooting their own AC.
Originally posted by Squire
"NATO had to "shoot down" their own MiG-29 in Bosnia 1999"
Really? well since only the Luftwaffe flew MiG-29s, and never deployed any in the campaign, how exactly did they manage to do that? Like all your posts you just blather on about ex-pat Soviet wannabe conspiracies to make yourselves feel better. :lol
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/tit...e=S2903~ser=COM
I posted links to this sad propaganda ****up in warbirds.general at ICI news server in 1999. NATO reported that 2 Yugoslavian MiG-29s violated Bosnian airspace and were shot down, one felt in Bosnia and pilot escaped. What they showed was indeed a crashed 29, but painted in non-Yugoslavian colours, with painted signs in Latinic letters like "annual inspection 1998" etc, while Russians and Serbs use Cyrillic. The plane didn't catch fire and a cockpit canopy was in place, undamaged. A clumsy propaganda attempt, wasn't it? ;)
JFYI, US bought over 30 MiG-29s from Moldavia in the 90s, now they have former defence minister jailed for that bargain :)
-
Originally posted by Squire
Wow, they downed a single F-117, well holy s***, I guess that spells the end for the USAF huh? Your too funny.
Serbs used Soviet ambush tactics and acheved some good results there. They claim several dozen "democratisators" shot down, and I'd better believe them then Western lies. After Korea there is no trust in Western loss reports, sorry. It's like any AC shot down and falling into the sea counted as "non-combat loss".
Originally posted by Squire
And the vaunted Serbia? they lost Kosovo, which is a UN protectorate, they recently lost Macedonia too, who doesnt want anything to do with them either (they voted independance) and are in power nowhere else in the region except Serbia proper.
Macedonia?! Macedonia separated from Yugoslavia in 1991 IIRC, without any military conflict, peacefully, maybe because Macedonians are not Catholic or Moslim?...
Maybe you mean Crna Gora? Black Mountain?
Originally posted by Squire
And Slobodan Milosovich? (your hero I guess) right, where is he?, oh thats right he died in the Hague awaiting war crimes after being overthrown.
You mean - who was murdered in Hague? Overthrown? You mean - won the election and then resigned to avoid bloodshed?
What happened to Yugoslavia is one huge crime against humanity committed by Western powers, combined with Miloshevich's inability to be more flexible and criminal noninterference by Russian regime.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You mean - who was murdered in Hague? Overthrown? You mean - won the election and then resigned to avoid bloodshed?
avoid bloodshed??? LOL - you best put down the bottle bud - he was the next thing to hitler. of course he had others do his blood letting...
(http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/31/arkan/story.arkan.jpg)
of course just more western "lies".. but do tell us how we faked the mass graves of boys and men
-
Al Gore might have invented the internet, but Boroda sure invented the parallel reality.
-
Boroda, you may hack & slash at will, but the fact remains that when the US armour met the USSR one, be it tanks or aircraft, the USSR stuff got rather much screwed. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugo or anything.
But again, it is not all the hardware.
Old saying is "in England it's not the weapon, but the man behind it"
;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
avoid bloodshed??? LOL - you best put down the bottle bud - he was the next thing to hitler. of course he had others do his blood letting...
(http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/31/arkan/story.arkan.jpg)
of course just more western "lies".. but do tell us how we faked the mass graves of boys and men
Slobo helds the responsibility fior the civil war in Yugosavia. It's a fact. Thanks to him - our Kremlin dreamers had a good example of what not to do.
What I meant was his resignation after Socialist party won the elections in 2001 (IIRC), but mob in the street installed Koshtinica as a president.
Mass graves - tell me exactly where they were found in Kosovo. Indeed it was a fake. Sorry. Do you know that Hague tribunal dropped accusations in genocide for Miloshevich? You didn't? Do you have access to his speeches in Hague? You don't? Well, so it goes.
Calling a person who died fighting for his nation's right to exist "hitler" is pretty stupid.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, you may hack & slash at will, but the fact remains that when the US armour met the USSR one, be it tanks or aircraft, the USSR stuff got rather much screwed. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugo or anything.
But again, it is not all the hardware.
Old saying is "in England it's not the weapon, but the man behind it"
;)
Exactly. Arabic countries are the best example so far.
BTW, you are completely wrong about Korea and Vietnam. Soviet air defence acheived great results there.
Soviet hardware, just as American one, shows all it's advantages when used in complex, and no country except USA and USSR could afford building such an integrated system.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Exactly. Arabic countries are the best example so far.
You may indeed have a point there, the only conflicts the Arabs have won were against the French so perhaps their long line of defeats against western hardware (try 150 to 0 with Migs versus McDonnel-Douglas in Lebannon) were not the result of deficient Soviet equipment.
Of course the Soviet-bloc weapons use by Soviet operators didn't fare so well in afghanistan now did they?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Calling a person who died fighting for his nation's right to exist "hitler" is pretty stupid.
the hitler reference is to the genocide he condoned
I'm sure it is all western lies and the truth can only be found in your motherland - cheers!!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, you may hack & slash at will, but the fact remains that when the US armour met the USSR one, be it tanks or aircraft, the USSR stuff got rather much screwed. Be it Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugo or anything.
But again, it is not all the hardware.
Old saying is "in England it's not the weapon, but the man behind it"
;)
So....... Soviet hardware sucks and ALSO Soviet training sucks. LOL.
And the funny part; Boroda agreed!
Let's sum it up.
1. US hardware always pounds Soviet hardware into the ground. (check)
2. Training is more of an issue than hardware. The people who use Soviet hardware are trained by Soviets, and STILL manage to lose. (check)
Summary: Soviet hardware and training all combine to form a consistant loser to any US hardware and training.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
You may indeed have a point there, the only conflicts the Arabs have won were against the French so perhaps their long line of defeats against western hardware (try 150 to 0 with Migs versus McDonnel-Douglas in Lebannon) were not the result of deficient Soviet equipment.
Of course the Soviet-bloc weapons use by Soviet operators didn't fare so well in afghanistan now did they?
1) 150:0 in Lebanon? I guess you mean 1982? Bekaa valley? According to Soviet data - Syrian air force did much better then that :D 21s as a bait and 23ML as a long-range killers vs Jewish F-15s - by modest estimations it was at least one 21 for one F-15. 150:0 is probably right only if you speak about initial strike against Syrian airfields.
2) Israeli propaganda never mentions losses from Soviet SAMs in 1982. USSR sent several regiments (including conscripted personell) to Syria in 1982, and their tactics is in PVO learning books now. They didn't invent anything, my Uncle said that they worked mostly on manual tracking from ambushes in Vietnam. Uncle was a targeting officer on S-75 in Vietnam, 4 confirmed kills, got severely wounded by one of the first HARMs.
3) I am on Israeli side now. They are the only nation that completley supports Russia in Chechnya.
4) In Afghanistan USSR did pretty well, withdrawal in 1989 was only a political decision, in fact - a crime.
5) In 2001 Russia sent lots of hardware to Northern Alliance, armour, small arms, etc, NA commanders wanted it badly, so we had to install two pontoon bridges across Pianj river on the border line. AFAIK it never reached Western media.
-
Yes, the Syrians had a good score, and Ribbentropf never met Molotov :D
Live in your own Disneylandsky, but the bottom line is that the Israelis have spanked everybody that had a scruffle with them. Mostly that was old western allies training and arms vs the old of the USSR.
And now, the times are different, the lines are different, and as pointed out here:
"3) I am on Israeli side now. They are the only nation that completley supports Russia in Chechnya."
-
Originally posted by Mr Nice
So....... Soviet hardware sucks and ALSO Soviet training sucks. LOL.
And the funny part; Boroda agreed!
Let's sum it up.
1. US hardware always pounds Soviet hardware into the ground. (check)
2. Training is more of an issue than hardware. The people who use Soviet hardware are trained by Soviets, and STILL manage to lose. (check)
Summary: Soviet hardware and training all combine to form a consistant loser to any US hardware and training.
Good to see your first post answering me :)
Soviet hardware is the worst nightmare for US forces. Check Vietnam experience, in Shaw's bible i have read about US pilots scared to death about SAMs, they couldn't do anything.
Best results were usually achieved by Soviet personell, like 64th IAK in Korea, fighting hordes of "UN" planes. Imagine less then 50 MiGs stopping the power of the half of the world... Making 3 (three) passes on a formation of 50 B-29s, shooting down 2 of them and damaging the third...
-
Originally posted by Mr Nice
So....... Soviet hardware sucks and ALSO Soviet training sucks. LOL.
And the funny part; Boroda agreed!
Let's sum it up.
1. US hardware always pounds Soviet hardware into the ground. (check)
2. Training is more of an issue than hardware. The people who use Soviet hardware are trained by Soviets, and STILL manage to lose. (check)
Summary: Soviet hardware and training all combine to form a consistant loser to any US hardware and training.
Hello Mr Nice. Always a pleasure to meet NEW oclub members :) Were are you from sir?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yes, the Syrians had a good score, and Ribbentropf never met Molotov :D
Live in your own Disneylandsky, but the bottom line is that the Israelis have spanked everybody that had a scruffle with them. Mostly that was old western allies training and arms vs the old of the USSR.
Israel has 2 times more tanks that it's opponents. As Napoleon said - god is on the side of bigger battalions.
Estimated efficiency of Israeli "Tsahal" is 1.5:1 against Arabs and something like 1.2:1 compared to Soviet Army. But you have to understand that people fighting for their homes are a little bit (i'm sarcastic) more motivated then aggressors.
-
"As Napoleon said - god is on the side of bigger battalions."
Didn't work always.
Look at Hitler's army against the UK, France & Lowlands for instance...
And Israels opponents are very much bigger than the Israelies in terms of almost everything, this is a false statement.
However, the the whole matter is more complicated than that.....
-
Boroda my friend, you are incorrect.
In 1982 Israeli losses in the air were minimal. Israel is a democratic government, an open society with freedom of speech and media. Because of this (and unlike other countries) we can't keep our losses hidden or classified.
If you look at the amount of losses for the IAF in equipment and personnel, it agrees with "our" version of events.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/SGC.htm
The resulting overwhelming IAF victory over Syrian SAM's and
interceptors has been described in detail in a number of
publications. 42 Briefly, the IAF had possessed a plan for
attacking the SAM sites in the Bekaa at least since the summer of
1981. By midday on 9 June, RPV's had located most of the SAM
sites and had relayed pictures back to Northern Command and the
IAF's Northern Regional Control Unit.
At 1400, the attack began. RPV's simulated attacking
aircraft, forcing the Syrians to switch on their acquisition and
fire control radars, and in some cases actually to engage the
RPV's. The drones pinpointed the locations of radars and missile
sites and relayed the information to Israeli E-2C Hawkeye and the
RC-707 control aircraft. As the Hawkeyes and specially equipped
tactical aircraft and RPV's conducted electronic jamming and
deception, a flight of 96 IAF planes attacked the missile sites.
Led by a flight of F-4's armed with Maverick and Shrike anti-
radiation missiles which destroyed most of the radar systems, IAF
F-4, F-15, F-16, and Kfir C-2 aircraft destroyed the batteries
one-by-one using a variety of ordnance -- laser-guided and tv-
guided bombs; television, infra-red, and anti-radiation missiles;
and even iron bombs. At the same time, the IDF artillery provided
suppression on all batteries and anti-aircraft gun locations
within range. A second wave of 92 IAF planes struck at 1550. As
this wave attacked, Syrian interceptors joined the fray, and in
the ensuing air battle 29 Syrian MiG-21, -23, -25, and SU-7
aircraft were shot down. By the end of the day, 41 Syrian planes
had been destroyed in air-to-air combat, mainly by F-15's but
also by other IAF planes using AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles and
Israeli-modified versions of the AIM-7 -- Shafir 2 and Python 3.
By day's end, 17 of the 19 SAM batteries had been destroyed.
The main battles of 10 June were fought in the Eastern
Sector, between the IDF and the Syrian 1st Armored Division. The
Syrian air force again sent up interceptors as the IAF destroyed
the remaining two SAM batteries, resulting in 25 more Syrian
MiG's being shot down.
The SAM sites the article speaks about were SA-6 and SA-8 systems, which at the time were the biggest headache for the IDF. Soviet hardware maybe is good, but maybe only in soviet hands :)
-
and from another link:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/hurley.html
Reports of what happened next vary. It is generally accepted that in the course of the first attack against the Bekaa an 9 June 1982, the IAF destroyed 17 of the 19 Syrian SAM batteries and their radar sites, as well as 29 Syrian Air Force (SAF) fighters, without loss.15 The following day, the IAF destroyed the remaining two missile batteries. The SAF once more challenged the Israelis and lost approximately 35 more aircraft, again without downing an Israeli aircraft. By the end of July, Syria had lost at least 87 aircraft, while Israeli losses amounted to a few helicopters, one RF-4E, and an A-4 Skyhawk downed by a PLO SA-7.
In this article they also forget to mention an IAF Kfir-C2 which was downed by a 30mm ack. The Kfir was damaged and was loosing hydraulics. The pilot managed to fly it out to sea, where he ejected safely, and was picked up by christian militias and returned to Israel.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Good to see your first post answering me :)
Soviet hardware is the worst nightmare for US forces. Check Vietnam experience, in Shaw's bible i have read about US pilots scared to death about SAMs, they couldn't do anything.
Best results were usually achieved by Soviet personell, like 64th IAK in Korea, fighting hordes of "UN" planes. Imagine less then 50 MiGs stopping the power of the half of the world... Making 3 (three) passes on a formation of 50 B-29s, shooting down 2 of them and damaging the third...
I don't know if Shaw flew in Vietnam but shortly after I joined the USAF in '73 I saw several films with F4's dodging SAM's. It was pretty much a hard turn left or right with the SAM shooting past where the aircraft had been. I'm sure the pilots were afraid of being shot down as some obviously were but I don't think "scared to death" describes their attitude in regard to SAM's at all.
-
Originally posted by ViFF
Israel is a democratic government, an open society with freedom of speech and media. Because of this (and unlike other countries) we can't keep our losses hidden or classified.
Israel is ranked in 47th place when it comes to freedom of the press.. Not that bad, and sertainly better than your neigbours. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Israel is ranked in 47th place when it comes to freedom of the press.. Not that bad, and sertainly better than your neigbours. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
That list is ludicrous at best.
How can you have freedom of the press without freedom of speech? Sweden for example is ranked #12 on that list yet jails people for religious or "hate speech".
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/007645.html
-
Israel (occupied territories) is on 121st place, but I guess that doesn't count Nilsen? ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
That list is ludicrous at best.
Please explain why?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Israel is ranked in 47th place when it comes to freedom of the press.. Not that bad, and sertainly better than your neigbours. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
USA outranked by Jamaica, but the rankings should be weighted by likelihood of something noteable happening.
"Da PM be smokin a fast one, mon"
is not big news like a worldwide network of secret torture prisons, neither is a scandal like
"PM won't take the whole, asserts authority & take the half regardless"
-
Originally posted by Boroda
3) I am on Israeli side now. They are the only nation that completley supports Russia in Chechnya.
I am with you on this subject. Our government's refusal to support you guys in whatever tactics you see appropriate to deal with Islamofascists within your borders is emabrassing to many of us. AFAIC, do whatever you want to wipe these mongrels out.
-
Originally posted by lukster
That list is ludicrous at best.
Why is that? Didnt like the results?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why is that? Didnt like the results?
My addition:
"That list is ludicrous at best.
How can you have freedom of the press without freedom of speech? Sweden for example is ranked #12 on that list yet jails people for religious or "hate speech".
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/007645.html "
-
Originally posted by lukster
My addition:
"That list is ludicrous at best.
How can you have freedom of the press without freedom of speech? Sweden for example is ranked #12 on that list yet jails people for religious or "hate speech".
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/007645.html "
Well... i guess that is because the government does not censor the press or put preassure on them. Freedom of speach is not the same as freedom of the press.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well... i guess that is because the government does not censor the press or put preassure on them. Freedom of speach is not the same as freedom of the press.
Is the press free then to denounce or report otherwise unfavorably on homosexuality in Sweden?
I didn't think so.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Is the press free then to denounce or report otherwise unfavorably on homosexuality in Sweden?
I didn't think so.
Im not swedish so i would not know. Cant imagine that they are not allowed to do so tho.. I know any paper here can do as it wishes. Remember the Muhammed drawing thing?
It does not discredit the list in any way. Read about the organisation and what they do. You can ofcourse form your own opinion.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Im not swedish so i would not know. Cant imagine that they are not allowed to do so tho.. I know any paper here can do as it wishes. Remember the Muhammed drawing thing?
It does not discredit the list in any way. Read about the organisation and what they do. You can ofcourse form your own opinion.
You have only to read the link I posted where it is stated that a preacher was jailed for 30 days in Sweden for saying homosexuality is wrong.
You can't have true freedom of the press without freedom of speech which is why that list is meaningless.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Is the press free then to denounce or report otherwise unfavorably on homosexuality in Sweden?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by lukster
My addition:
"That list is ludicrous at best.
How can you have freedom of the press without freedom of speech? Sweden for example is ranked #12 on that list yet jails people for religious or "hate speech".
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/007645.html "
They don’t jail people for religious or “hate speech”. You can say what you want. Incite a riot or violence on the other hand is something very different.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes.
The press is but not citizens? Please prove it.
-
Originally posted by Viking
They don’t jail people for religious or “hate speech”. You can say what you want. Incite a riot or violence on the other hand is something very different.
Did you not read the link I posted? perhaps you think it is a lie?
-
Originally posted by lukster
You have only to read the link I posted where it is stated that a preacher was jailed for 30 days in Sweden for saying homosexuality is wrong.
You can't have true freedom of the press without freedom of speech which is why that list is meaningless.
Well.. still dont agree with you on that.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well.. still dont agree with you on that.
At least you have that right. Just be glad I'm not homosexual and that you don't live in Sweden. ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
The press is but not citizens? Please prove it.
That's simple. Pastor Åke Green was acquitted of the charges by the Swedish Supreme Court.
You simply don't have a case (pun intended) ;)
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2590&date=20051129
-
Originally posted by lukster
At least you have that right. Just be glad I'm not homosexual and that you don't live in Sweden. ;)
Im glad for those 2 things no matter what :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
That's simple. Pastor Åke Green was acquitted of the charges by the Swedish Supreme Court.
You simply don't have a case (pun intended) ;)
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2590&date=20051129
He was convicted but the lower court's ruling was overturned. He still did jail time I believe. i'll look it up.
Fact remains, Sweden does have anti-hate speech laws on the books.
-
Looks like the Swedish Supreme Court bowed to the European court.
"Åke Green (born 3 June, 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[1]"
http://www.answers.com/topic/ke-green
So, Sweden was listed at #12 and the US was far below. Yet a preacher cannot denounce homosexuality in Sweden but protesters can heckle those attending a soldier's funeral in the US because they fight for homosexuals.
I'm just about certain that the press would not be "free" to publish an article on the spread of aids being blamed on homsexuals. Freedom of the press my ass.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'm just about certain that the press would not be "free" to publish an article on the spread of aids being blamed on homsexuals. Freedom of the press my ass.
Then im just about sertain that you would be wrong. The paper would get bad press and they would be drawn into plenty of debates and uproar but the government would stay out of it.
Same thing happended with the christian paper here that printed the Muhammed drawings. They were at no point told to do anything about it by the government, but they lost readers and their pubisher in the end came with an apology for not thinking but he never said he was sorry for standing his ground on the right to publish what he wanted.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Then im just about sertain that you would be wrong.
The laws on the books say you're wrong.
We have no laws in the US against "hate speech". While some here might go along with it, most see that as an attempt at thought control and a violation of our most basic human rights.
I stand by my claim that true freedom of the press is derived from freedom of speech.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Looks like the Swedish Supreme Court bowed to the European court.
"Åke Green (born 3 June, 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[1]"
http://www.answers.com/topic/ke-green
So, Sweden was listed at #12 and the US was far below. Yet a preacher cannot denounce homosexuality in Sweden but protesters can heckle those attending a soldier's funeral in the US because they fight for homosexuals.
I'm just about certain that the press would not be "free" to publish an article on the spread of aids being blamed on homsexuals. Freedom of the press my ass.
A Swede answered your question on a blog:
“I can easily imagine that to Solon claim that "gays are cancer in the body of society" is "thoughtful. It is actually precisely the same metaphor that nazis used. And what is the cure of cancer? Removal by knife. Germans in 1930's understood it and so will those who seek reasoning for violence towards gays.
Once again there is need to get some facts straightened out even though I know that evangelicals are not friend of truth in no way or form. Ake Green was never indicted for preaching because NOBODY HEARD HIS SERMON. His congregation cosists of 50 Pentecostals out of which 10 were present when the sermon was given. Åke Green had invited media (radio, TV, newspapers) to attend and when nobody came he spread the sermon in writing to several newspapers, internet sites etc.
So the bogey man of Swedish Police arresting Green after sermon in church is a lie.
Sweden does not one constitution. It has four set of laws that are considered to be "constitutional law" which means that they can be altered only if two consecutive parliaments (there has to be general election in between) approve them by 3/4ths of a majority. Law that regulates freedom of speech and expression are those and so is the hate crimes law because it is a law that to some extent curtails it.
The hate speech law is first and foremost aimed against people who advocate for violence against any group of people (regardless of reasoning, Bible, Mein Kampf, Quran, personal hatred). Basically the prosecutor did what he had to do because there wasn't a case before this that would have set boundaries for religious hate speech. Because Green only advovcated for violence by using metaphors and using Bible quotes in typical evengelicallly selective fashion, he was freed.
The case actually helped gays in Sweden and it most certaily did not help anti-gay cause. It showed what kind of fringe groups opposed gay rights and Åke Green was usually presented together with neonazi leaders who used same kind of language.”
So you see: You can say what you want about homosexuals as long as you don’t incite violence against them. Pastor Åke Green incited violence against gays, but got away with it just like the neo-Nazis do.
Of course this has nothing to do with freedom of the press. It’s just a straw man argument because you can’t substantiate your claim that the freedom of the press ranking list is “ludicrous at best”.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The laws on the books say you're wrong.
We have no laws in the US against "hate speech". While some here might go along with it, most see that as an attempt at thought control and a violation of our most basic human rights.
I stand by my claim that true freedom of the press is derived from freedom of speech.
That is your prerogative.
Im off to bed. Always a pleasure discussing with you as you can keep yer cool in any discussion ive had with you.
gn :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
That is your prerogative.
Im off to bed. Always a pleasure discussing with you as you can keep yer cool in any discussion ive had with you.
gn :)
Don't let the bed bugs bite. ;)
-
bugs??... were??? :confused: :huh :eek: