Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since the Ayatollah took over the country I highly doubt the F14's are top notched let alone maintained. Where would they get the parts

Off the top of my head I believe the former King of Iran brought like 20+ F-14's. Serious doubts on them using if they do have them the Pheonix Air to Air missiles.

I also don't doubt some of those F14's are in Russia

 Jihadin wrote:
Since the Ayatollah took over the country I highly doubt the F14's are top notched let alone maintained. Where would they get the parts

Off the top of my head I believe the former King of Iran brought like 20+ F-14's. Serious doubts on them using if they do have them the Pheonix Air to Air missiles.

I also don't doubt some of those F14's are in Russia

The Iranians under the Shah had American contractors to help maintain those F14s. I believe they were sabotaged right before the Americans bugged out back in 1979. I highly doubt those F14s are even flyable and if they are, they are running avionics packages 30+ years out of date.

 djones520 wrote:
Iran's F-14's are 40 years old, and haven't seen a western maintenance depot in that time frame.

I'll just point one thing out. One of the finest running maintained classic American automobiles I have ever ridden in was in Havana. I think it safe to day that Cuba has been without a supply of NOS parts for 1937 Buicks for some time.

So, don't assume that your maint program is better than theirs, parts or no.

Known stocks include your Mig 29s, an unknown number (most reports say about 20-ish) of F 14's remain operational of the original 80, and (most likely) 250 Flanker Cs they ordered from Russia a while back as part of several very large arms transactions Russia and China have made under the table with Iran. How many of them and the 2 squadrons of J-10's from China they actually got are entirely anyone's guess.

I've heard that Iran cannot build aircraft, but I know for a fact they've been building a local knock off of the F-5 for years.

30 years plus avionic package eh. I wouldn't trust the airframe to handle flight.

 Jihadin wrote:
30 years plus avionic package eh. I wouldn't trust the airframe to handle flight.

If they can duplicate the F-5 they can probably duplicate the F-14. Those Flanker Cs though are a bigger concern. I'm told that they're not the fastest, but are highly maneuverable.

That's the aircraft itself Baron. Unless its Russian "volunteer" pilot the Syrian pilot experience is nil compared to a western fighter pilot.

 Jihadin wrote:
That's the aircraft itself Baron. Unless its Russian "volunteer" pilot the Syrian pilot experience is nil compared to a western fighter pilot.

I'm more than familiar with the difference between the machine and it's crew. Flanker training flights have been spotted (supposedly) on occasion on the northern border of Iran. How much the Russian's experience will rub off on the guys they're training is a good question. Logically they'd want their best guys in them, but who knows what goes on.

 djones520 wrote:
Their ability to wage a war with Israel is non-existant without the support of the surrounding Arab nations, and I gaurantee you Iraq will give Iran a big feth YOU, before they let any of their military into their space.

I imagine that the Saudis and Jordanians would also be displeased. The Egyptians might take issue as well.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Enlighten me then. What do you think nation building there would entail.

Any outside force would minimally need to depose the Assad regime and replace it with a new one, all the while fighting existential dissidents who were not invited to the party; many of whom are hostile to the West.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Article 5 springs to mind. Turkey IS a NATO member state.

Article 5 does not require a military response. And, given that the US has not used the military against Mexico, or even broached the topic with the other members of NATO, I am doubtful any non-military violence within Turkey will elicit a NATO response.

Grey Templar wrote:Do the Syrians have anything capable of hitting a B-2?

Yes. Anything can hit anything.

djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, they got some ballsy pilots. If you are low enough the AA can't get a fix.

Pretty much. The Israeli AF is flat out crazy good.

Flying at the deck, is a lot differant for ADA then a bomber flying at 35,000 feet. If the ADA is advanced enough they will be able to see him. The question is, is it advanced enough.

That is something that I do not know. I could probably find out though... *contemplates going to talk to the intel guys*

Conversely, being low means that every IR and optical platform in the world's going to be able to open up on you, and you're going to need to pop up at some point anyway to set up your dump. I doubt the Israelis go in with nuts in the trees; just a standard package with plenty of SEAD, and they probably simply rarely get shot at. Like the Serbs in the '90s, I expect Syrian priority is keeping the AD to live and fight another day rather than risking it protecting whatever the Israelis are going to hit, knowing they're going to hit it anyway.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Those Flanker Cs though are a bigger concern.

Noooooo.

I'm told that they're not the fastest, but are highly maneuverable.

Eh. So's everything we fly. I'll take a Super Bug with AESA over a Flanker in any fight, ever. If it ever did come to knife-fighting, we've been using AIM-9Xs cued off the JHMCS for a while now.

 CptJake wrote:
We could have stopped Rwanda, but didn't. We could stop what is going on in the Congo, and don't. We could interfere in Mexico and don't. Hell, we could send the 10st into Chicago and end gang violence there in a week, but don't.

As for just 'helping civilians', WAY easier said than done. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of bad guys freely mixing with the civilian population. Running giant prison camps you want to call 'safe zones' ensure you growing insurgents that see your forces as the occupier. We do NOT need to be getting into that business.

2 important points there - as you've said, extremely selective use of force. Millions have died in the congo, no-one gives a damn.

And while I can understand people not knowing about history from some time ago, in this case we have a military action from 10 years ago in Iraq that will show what is going to happen in Syria once the Assad regime is knocked out of place. Like Iraq, we're going to set the country up for 20 years of sectarian violence, of destruction of civil infrastructure as the various warlords vie for power in the country. The city under control of the rebels has got groups that are affiliated with Al-Quaeda in charge of it - that is the kind of people that are going to be rising to prominence once these air strikes have been completed.

Most importantly it's going to result in a complete de-stabilisation of the area - the kind that breeds terrorists, like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the kids pulling their way out of houses that have been reduced to rubble and look at the West as the reason their life has been turned on its head. Our un-necessary meddling in others events, that is benefiting only the industrialists directing national policies, could well end up costing the rest of us.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well I think were in luck on that part. Neither Isreal and Iran would make the first move.

You say that. Iran creeps ever closer and closer to their first nuclear weapon. And that's something that Israel simply cannot permit to come into existence.

Due to that factor, I think that the Israeli's will be at war with Iran at some point in the next four years.

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well I think were in luck on that part. Neither Isreal and Iran would make the first move.

You say that. Iran creeps ever closer and closer to their first nuclear weapon. And that's something that Israel simply cannot permit to come into existence.

Due to that factor, I think that the Israeli's will be at war with Iran at some point in the next four years.

Oh that the most certainly will. But they wont risk it over Syria, why lose gear and trained personnel when you have a major showdown coming up. Only if provoked will either of them start a war over Syria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
We could have stopped Rwanda, but didn't. We could stop what is going on in the Congo, and don't. We could interfere in Mexico and don't. Hell, we could send the 10st into Chicago and end gang violence there in a week, but don't.

As for just 'helping civilians', WAY easier said than done. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of bad guys freely mixing with the civilian population. Running giant prison camps you want to call 'safe zones' ensure you growing insurgents that see your forces as the occupier. We do NOT need to be getting into that business.

2 important points there - as you've said, extremely selective use of force. Millions have died in the congo, no-one gives a damn.

And while I can understand people not knowing about history from some time ago, in this case we have a military action from 10 years ago in Iraq that will show what is going to happen in Syria once the Assad regime is knocked out of place. Like Iraq, we're going to set the country up for 20 years of sectarian violence, of destruction of civil infrastructure as the various warlords vie for power in the country. The city under control of the rebels has got groups that are affiliated with Al-Quaeda in charge of it - that is the kind of people that are going to be rising to prominence once these air strikes have been completed.

Most importantly it's going to result in a complete de-stabilisation of the area - the kind that breeds terrorists, like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the kids pulling their way out of houses that have been reduced to rubble and look at the West as the reason their life has been turned on its head. Our un-necessary meddling in others events, that is benefiting only the industrialists directing national policies, could well end up costing the rest of us.

I fully agree with almost everything you said. But on the part of kids blaming the West, I think were already damned for not helping sooner in their eyes. So the difference to me would be putting our troops in arms reach of those people.

Quote from the Times:

A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.

Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.

'Murica


*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway

 Ouze wrote:
Quote from the Times:

A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.

Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.

'Murica


*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway

This is going to end very badly. Knowing what targets we will probably hit gives the Syrian government time to pull a Hamas move and place those installations right next to the children's playground. This is going to end up the same as Isreali airstrikes on rocket sites. Great PR for them against the West from images of dead children and a lot of people not caring about the circumstances.

 Ouze wrote:
Quote from the Times:

A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.

Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.

'Murica


*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway

Yup...

I'd say, we either stay out (but, help with refugees and such).

Or, go hog-wild, balls-out and curb stomp both Assad/rebels...

I don't think its about Assad. I think its showing Iran -use WMDs and you get hit.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't think its about Assad. I think its showing Iran -use WMDs and you get some procrastination and waffling on the subject but its okay prior to this to do what you want

I feel that this is much better.

If that is the case then the bombing needs to be epic-a level that would even give Russians pause- and not something Clintonesque.

 Frazzled wrote:
If that is the case then the bombing needs to be epic-a level that would even give Russians pause- and not something Clintonesque.

I agree whole heartedly. The thing is. The West hates to see anything so horrifying and that really is a problem and something that is exploitable. Syria (and Iraq and Afghanistan before it) needs a salting of the earth, lamentation of the women campaign with boots on the ground but that isn't going to happen.

 Ouze wrote:
Quote from the Times:

A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.

Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.

'Murica


*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway

So that's what crossing the red line does? If Syria has used chemical weapons then their stores of them haven't been affected so they still have them for possible future deployment, so it seems this is just a face saving gesture more than anything. It won't do anything substantial to change the outcome of the civil war. The media will have plenty of fodder to hand wring over once the inevitable pictures of civilians killed as alleged collateral damage surface. Jihaddis now have another reason to be upset with the US. And Assad now has something else to rally his supporters around. I get the feeling this course of action hardly benefits us.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't think its about Assad. I think its showing Iran -use WMDs and you get hit.

Yup. Develop WMDs all you want. But once you are alleged to have used them well spin our wheels, ask for a UN inspection, and then maybe hit you with some cruise missiles a week or so later..... but we won't target your WMD stockpiles.

Any intervention will be for political point scoring and not for any humanitarian or tactical or strategic reason.

Like a fashion models smile it will be vacuous.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Any intervention will be for political point scoring and not for any humanitarian or tactical or strategic reason.

Like a fashion models smile it will be vacuous.

And the proposed military action, like a fashion model, will lack any real substance or meat

 Seaward wrote:

Noooooo.

F14s are nice , but ten times as many Flanker Cs are a bigger concern, I don't care how awesome you think the Tomcat is.

 Seaward wrote:

Eh. So's everything we fly. I'll take a Super Bug with AESA over a Flanker in any fight, ever. If it ever did come to knife-fighting, we've been using AIM-9Xs cued off the JHMCS for a while now.

That's because you're used to the superbug. Flanker's nothing to sneeze at, and according to the Jerusalem Post they bought in bulk. She's got a higher climb speed and more engine thrust than that superbug and if she's carrying the newer Russian package she's a very viable threat.

For the giggles, here's footage of the new model flanker from the Paris air show

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That's because you're used to the superbug. Flanker's nothing to sneeze at, and according to the Jerusalem Post they bought in bulk. She's got a higher climb speed and more engine thrust than that superbug and if she's carrying the newer Russian package she's a very viable threat.

For the giggles, here's footage of the new model flanker from the Paris air show

That's impressive, but the big questions are;
- who will be flying them?
- how much, and what sort of, training have they had?

Any defence in depth, the state of Syrian C3 and 4 will be the biggest determining factor.

Flankers without trained pilots will just be target tugs.

 Frazzled wrote:
If that is the case then the bombing needs to be epic-a level that would even give Russians pause- and not something Clintonesque.

Exactly... MOAB'ing level...

damned if we do,
damned if we dont,

dont costs less.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Flankers without trained pilots will just be target tugs.

Yup - speed bumps

 easysauce wrote:
damned if we do,
damned if we dont,

dont costs less.

That's my current philosophy atm, unless I can hear a convincing case as to how getting involved in a civil war benefits us - other than saving face.

 easysauce wrote:
damned if we do,
damned if we dont,

dont costs less.

Going to war (you know, blowing things up and killing people) is an act of extremely serious moral dimension. We should not even consider this engagement unless we are satisfied that at least one of the two is true:

1) That such action is so manifestly in our own selfish interests that we can be forgiven for taking the violent action.

2) That the action is so manifestly in the interests of general altruistic good we would scarcely forgive ourselves if we didn't take the violent action.

Which one is it?

Lets lay our cards on the table here. The most successful Western military interventions since the end of WW2 have been Grenada and the Falklands. everything else has been a hamstrung clusterfeth or has seen muddled aims get even more tangled.

Hell, even the campaign in Western Europe during 44-45 had infighting and the political bullseye of no march on Berlin. The naughty letter (is that right or was it the naughty list? I get Churchill and Santa confused) pitched by Churchill to Stalin was particularly epic in offensiveness, as was the Polish solution.

Personally I feel the whole area would be left more stable by backing Assad. He can threaten pissing on the Israeli cornflakes without meaning it and you know how much corruption you are getting.



I