Read the forum code of contact
By: 25th September 2015 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-next-big-weapons-sale-the-lethal-su-30-fighter-iran-13910SMH more of Obama's failed Iran policy.
On his watch Irans has nukes, Su-30s and S-300s
The only way to conclusively stop Iran from going nuclear would have been a full scale US-led invasion followed by a drawn out occupation, which is something even the hardest of hardliners in the US Congress have no stomach for. A sustained bombing campaign would at most delay the program. The third alternative i.e. sanctions could only increase the economic cost that Iran pays for its nuclear ambitions. It wouldn't stop them any more than it stopped Pakistan's nuclear program.
Its true that the current deal may not have been the best possible one that could have been negotiated, but it varies from that only in terms of degrees. The other thing to remember is that the US isn't the only party involved. The sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table wouldn't have succeeded without the active involvement of the EU (which also led the negotiations) , Russia, China, India, Japan and everybody else. The credit/blame for the outcome is therefore also shared by everybody.
As for the Su-30s & S-300s, that shouldn't bother anybody any more than their presence in Syria does. The purpose of the sanction regime was never to militarily incapacitate Iran. Russia & China would never have gone along with it, had that been the case.
By: 25th September 2015 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-By the way doesn't play the "Nationalinterest" in the same league like "WantChinaTimes" ??
By: 25th September 2015 at 22:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Iran is a sovereign country and have every right to have Su-30s or S-300s if they see fit.
Don't see slightest reason why would they need approval for that..
By: 25th September 2015 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yeah, this is dumb. Obama's policy was to bring Iranian's to the table through sanctions and secure a deal that would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel and republicans are bitching just because. Iran are otherwise free to buy whatever the **** they want from whoever.
By: 25th September 2015 at 23:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Surprised to see this, what with Iran having developed an indigenous 5th gen stealth fighter...
By: 25th September 2015 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Iran is a sovereign country and have every right to have Su-30s or S-300s if they see fit.
Don't see slightest reason why would they need approval for that..
Yeah, this is dumb. Obama's policy was to bring Iranian's to the table through sanctions and secure a deal that would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel and republicans are bitching just because. Iran are otherwise free to buy whatever the **** they want from whoever.
Not to **** on your cornflakes but...
However, in July 2015 it was decided that from the day it is confirmed that Iran has implemented certain restrictions on its nuclear programme, supplies of major arms and related components and services would be possible with the specific approval from the Security Council and that all arms related sanctions would be lifted 5 to 8 years later.
http://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/un_arms_embargoes/iran
By: 25th September 2015 at 23:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Su-30 & sam's won't deter USA, only nukes with reliable delivery does,
it can be safely assumed USA will wage economic war no matter what
By: 25th September 2015 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Nukes didn't stop the USA from sending troops in to Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. All Iran would gain by obtaining Nukes is to make them even more of a target for the US and Israel.
By: 26th September 2015 at 00:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-firstly, the assassination of bin laden wasnt a state on state war,
secondly, even if it was a state on state war, pakistan still dont have a reliable delivery to strike any US interests,
except possibly diego garcia, that might be within range
By: 26th September 2015 at 00:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not to **** on your cornflakes but...
You
http://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/un_arms_embargoes/iran
I am skeptical about this UN resolution. Looks to me giving cover for agreement . It will be ignored in due time if not already. Just technology and intelligence sharing will make it ineffective.
By: 26th September 2015 at 00:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-firstly, the assassination of bin laden wasnt a state on state war,
secondly, even if it was a state on state war, pakistan still dont have a reliable delivery to strike any US interests,
except possibly diego garcia, that might be within range
Iran can launch bm on Saudi king.
By: 26th September 2015 at 03:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think that West should be smart enough to realize by now that Iran is the only stable not radical LARGE country in the region. Yes they have many laws to fix and update but in my opinion they are on a decent path to do so in comparison to all their neighbors! Women have way more civil rights there than in UAE.
That being said, you cannot just go ahead and preemptively bomb the hell out of the LARGE country like that and hope the WORLD will like it because Iran wants to get defensive weapons.
They are not actually threatening anyone in the region, nor do they historically have interest to invade anyone now. Other than retaliation in case of an attack. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
But please don't give me those twisted quotes ranging from "Israel should not exist" aka should be whiped out. All that is as good as Mr Trump saying USA can't have any more of Mexicans coming into the USA because they are rapists. BS that only helps west media.
If anything, they are investing their own BUTTS to fight ISIL on the ground.
Honestly, I doubt that in any case Su-30s will change anything in the next few years, unless they go all out with structure and numbers like China did. They cannot even begin that even with all the sanctions lifted. For the next few years it might be few S300s and six SU-30 if they get lucky. Yeah, a real game changer.
Their best protection is all i wrote above and the world will not accept preemptive attack on such large sovereign country after Mr Bush's Iraq.
No disrespect to anyone, although i disagree with some, and many will disagree with me.
S300/400s for everyone,. I say !!!!
By: 26th September 2015 at 03:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This whole "Iran has/will have nukes!!!111111 thx obummer!!" is getting stupid.
Even the Mossad thinks it's a load of bs.
But in a secret report shared with South Africa a few weeks later, Israel’s intelligence agency concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”. The report highlights the gulf between the public claims and rhetoric of top Israeli politicians and the assessments of Israel’s military and intelligence establishment.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad
By: 26th September 2015 at 05:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-next-big-weapons-sale-the-lethal-su-30-fighter-iran-13910SMH more of Obama's failed Iran policy.
On his watch Irans has nukes, Su-30s and S-300s
probably unlikely. Russia and Iran are not super best friends. They regard Russia as the lesser Satan.
If you read many other analyst reports on the Syrian war, they regard Russia's entry into it is not because of the US per say, but because of Iran.
Syria was Russia's buddy, but Iran is coming in and saying "we're a more reliable friend, we can provide boots on the ground". Russia is trying to woo them back.
By: 26th September 2015 at 08:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ignoring all the bigoted, alarmist, and simply ludicrous posts that constitute most of this thread, with the easing of sanctions Iran will undoubtedly at some point seek to recapitalise its air force.
Su-30 is undoubtedly one candidate the job, but not an ideal one. As a large aircraft it will have high acquisition and, more importantly, operating costs, whilst its long range will arouse anxiety throughout the region.
Long-term, Iran should seek to operate two types of combat aircraft from independent vendors -- probably Russia and China. Given that J-10 cannot today be regarded as an entirely independent aircraft, I think this puts MiG-35 in the box seat, with Iran as perhaps the major customer for the type outside RuAF. Looking further afield, Iran could then supplement with J-31 at the appropriate juncture.
By: 26th September 2015 at 08:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Su-30 is undoubtedly one candidate the job, but not an ideal one. As a large aircraft it will have high acquisition and, more importantly, operating costs, whilst its long range will arouse anxiety throughout the region.I am quite surprised that you say that. An air force with decade long history of operating F-4D/Es and F-14As should hardly worry about operating cost of Su-30MKs.
Long-term, Iran should seek to operate two types of combat aircraft from independent vendors -- probably Russia and China. Given that J-10 cannot today be regarded as an entirely independent aircraft, I think this puts MiG-35 in the box seat, with Iran as perhaps the major customer for the type outside RuAF. Looking further afield, Iran could then supplement with J-31 at the appropriate juncture.??? Please, elaborate.. Al-31FN?
By: 26th September 2015 at 09:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I am quite surprised that you say that. An air force with decade long history of operating F-4D/Es and F-14As should hardly worry about operating cost of Su-30MKs.
That Iran already operates large aircraft with high operation and maintenance costs does not mean that this is an ideal state of affairs or one that IRIAF should seek to preserve going forward. Iran is a medium-sized country with an advanced civil society, if the relevant requirements (i.e. air defense, etc.) can be met by an aircraft that is smaller and cheaper than Su-30, then this should be pursued.
??? Please, elaborate.. Al-31FN?
Yes, I was referring to the engine. If you are buying a Chinese aircraft that cannot fly without a Russian engine, why not buy a Russian aircraft in the first place?
Recall that the eventual goal -- if at all feasible -- should be to operate two combat types from independent vendors so as to preserve the nation's capacity for independent action in the face of sanctions. A type -- J-10 -- that is subject to veto by two different countries does not help.
Of course it's possible that J-10B (+ Chinese munitions package) could be an attractive enough proposition (in terms of capability/cost) to overrule these considerations.
By: 26th September 2015 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ignoring all the bigoted, alarmist, and simply ludicrous posts that constitute most of this thread, with the easing of sanctions Iran will undoubtedly at some point seek to recapitalise its air force.Su-30 is undoubtedly one candidate the job, but not an ideal one. As a large aircraft it will have high acquisition and, more importantly, operating costs, whilst its long range will arouse anxiety throughout the region.
Long-term, Iran should seek to operate two types of combat aircraft from independent vendors -- probably Russia and China. Given that J-10 cannot today be regarded as an entirely independent aircraft, I think this puts MiG-35 in the box seat, with Iran as perhaps the major customer for the type outside RuAF. Looking further afield, Iran could then supplement with J-31 at the appropriate juncture.
nah. there are news that Iran is looking at J-10s.
earlier this year they also said they are mass producing Saeghe fighters.. that's the F-5 with boxy intakes and twin canted tails. The Iranians claim its capable as the Hornet, which is J-10 class.. so theoretically they can produce their own fighter (i doubt its as capable to be honest).
supposedly they're also close to being able to reproduce most of the F-14 now too.
By: 26th September 2015 at 11:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-That Iran already operates large aircraft with high operation and maintenance costs does not mean that this is an ideal state of affairs or one that IRIAF should seek to preserve going forward. Iran is a medium-sized country with an advanced civil society, if the relevant requirements (i.e. air defense, etc.) can be met by an aircraft that is smaller and cheaper than Su-30, then this should be pursued.
Theoretically, if they replaced the whole heavy lineage (F-14A, F-4D/E, Su-24MK) by Su-30MKPs and the lightweight stuff (F-7/FT-7, F-5E/F, Su-22M-4K, MiG-29, Mirage F1) by J-10s, the operating cost saving would be quite tremendous.
Yes, I was referring to the engine. If you are buying a Chinese aircraft that cannot fly without a Russian engine, why not buy a Russian aircraft in the first place?I think the same. Given the current situation, it is unlikely that they would achieve a complete independence on two separate vendors. In that regard I would rather weight in the advantages of the J-10 (commonality of engines with Su-30, operating cost...) vs MiG-29M (commonality of weapons, maybe even some avionics?..)..Recall that the eventual goal -- if at all feasible -- should be to operate two combat types from independent vendors so as to preserve the nation's capacity for independent action in the face of sanctions. A type -- J-10 -- that is subject to veto by two different countries does not help.
Of course it's possible that J-10B (+ Chinese munitions package) could be an attractive enough proposition (in terms of capability/cost) to overrule these considerations.
By: 26th September 2015 at 12:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-But can they even afford large investments into military aircraft now with their economy in shambles and low oil prices, plus the financial help to Syrian and Iraqi regimes? Given the strength of the Saudi air force, they would need to buy decent numbers to make any difference and then there's training, maintenance, all new weapons, etc.
Posts: 572
By: Jessmo23 - 25th September 2015 at 21:20
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-next-big-weapons-sale-the-lethal-su-30-fighter-iran-13910
SMH more of Obama's failed Iran policy.
On his watch Irans has nukes, Su-30s and S-300s