Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Iranian Airforce

This is a discussion on Iranian Airforce within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Is it still a reliable fighting force? Does it have any real attack capabilities and is it able to gain ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.
Old October 6th, 2010   #1
New Member
Private
Corsair96's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 36
Threads:
Thumbs up Iranian Airforce

Is it still a reliable fighting force? Does it have any real attack capabilities and is it able to gain air superiority over the battlefield? Are their only new local aircraft in the makings?

Just pretty much any all around new
Corsair96 is offline  
Old October 11th, 2010   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
Over what battlefield and against what foe? Against Saudi Arabia, Egypt, somebody like that and where dont see them having the ability to truly project any power.
Belesari is offline  
Old October 12th, 2010   #3
Junior Member
Private First Class
EXSSBN2005's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 91
Threads:
The Iranian Air Force has between 350 fighters
to about 400ish (Iran Air Force) as well as transport aircraft, ground attack, vip transport, helicopters. The majority of the fighters are F-15's, MiG-29A's, and F-5 tigers, with a number of F-4 phantoms, F-7 chengdu's, and F1 Mirages. Plus their newer drone but there is already a thread on that here. Iran Launches First Long-Range UCAV

As far as who they would worry about they might be interested in fighting the Azerbaijan(i) or Turkmenistani forces over oil and fishing rights in the Caspian Sea, Russia is still the dominant naval power on the sea but I remember seeing something about a month ago over friction about Iran / Azerbaijan having a falling out over these issues. In this scenario I could see the Iranians being able to fairly easily roll up the militaries of either of these countries in an attempt to spread their influence further into the sea area for the deep water resources available there. Azeri and Iran are both mostly shia so this could also prove a catalyst for maybe a reunification of greater Iran
. Im not going to go into much more detail on relations as that is not to the point on the topic.

This is possiably a low intensity conflict that could roil into a regional conflict unless maybe the azerbijans form some alliances with either Israel or Russia would be the only way the US would probably become involved. Azerbaijan has only about 106 fighters and 35 helos
(USA is also helping upgrade their navy, and some airbases to use them as emergency landing areas for planes bound for afghanistan.)
EXSSBN2005 is offline  
Old October 13th, 2010   #4
New Member
Private
Corsair96's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 36
Threads:
Against saudi lets say
Corsair96 is offline  
Old October 13th, 2010   #5
Junior Member
Private First Class
EXSSBN2005's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 91
Threads:
Probably would not happen ( war iran vs saudi) but it is a possiability (According to Le Figaro, on June 5, 2010, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Hervé Morin, the Defense Minister of France that: "There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel.) - per wikipedia linked here (not trying to be inflamitory just showing a quote from a regional/world leader )
Both Iran and Saudi are muslem nations but Iran being shi'ite and Saudi being Sunni/Wahabbi and their territory including Mecca and Medina that Iran has said the Saudis allow non-muslem types too close to these cities

But for a hypothetical are we going with iran being the agressor or Saudi being the agressor? I'm not sure on dispositions of units and airbases but say both sides were escalating towards a major fight with time to reposition forces and assuming no major suprise attack Saudi would win more than likely due to higher number of aircraft (1009 total, 504 fighters counting the new eurofighter typhoons on order still) (royal saudi airforce wiki) and relatively newer generations of aircraft and maintance practices. Plus figure in Kuwait (~50 air craft) and maybe some other countries plus US carrier aircraft and Iran would probably be out of action in the air for awhile. While this scenario is prossiable I would not think it would go down this way due to Iran not wanting to fight a war it is sure to lose and thus would more than likely they not be the aggressors. This probably went beyond the scope of the origional question and if it veered into a VS thread then I'll go back if the mods want and change it to something less viewed as a VS thread.
EXSSBN2005 is offline  
Old October 14th, 2010   #6
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,022
Threads:
The Saudis have much better gear then Iran. I'm not sure what their pilots training or what their doctrine look like, but I suspect they also have one-up on IRan in those areas, so that one would be a no-brainer (to me at least).
Feanor is offline  
Old October 14th, 2010   #7
Junior Member
Private First Class
EXSSBN2005's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 91
Threads:
From what I have read the Saudis have more flight time, more airborne and land based radar, and better tactics from what my limited understanding of air combat goes but I was trying to be able to just give stats and things I could provide links to (sure wiki is not the best but its usually pretty close to correct when hard numbers are involved) and I didnt want to seem like I was on any particular side and allowing my national bias to get involved, just the facts as they say just the facts .
EXSSBN2005 is offline  
Old October 14th, 2010   #8
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 35
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EXSSBN2005 View Post
he majority of the fighters are F-15's, MiG-29A's, and F-5 tigers, with a number of F-4 phantoms, F-7 chengdu's, and F1 Mirages.
F-15s? You mean the old F-14As right?
Jack Johnson is offline  
Old October 14th, 2010   #9
Junior Member
Private First Class
EXSSBN2005's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 91
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Johnson View Post
F-15s? You mean the old F-14As right?
Yes you are right thank you for the correction to F-14As not F-15s, that will teach me to post after pulling a 16 hr shift at work .
EXSSBN2005 is offline  
Old November 13th, 2010   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 115
Threads:
Saudi Arabia has a far superior air force to Iran.

Iran would I think be unlikley to attack Saudi, as it would lose. As there is no land border any conflict would be confined to air and sea conflict, not a true invasion. Could Iran get hundreds of thousands of troops across the gulf quickly enough to defeat Saudi, I doubt it.

The other thinking is what is the plusses and minusses of Saudi attacking Iran. Yes Saudi Arabia in the short term could gain air superiority and Naval superiority, but what then. It would probably degenerate into a slug fest. Iran could use small submarines, fast attak craft, helicopeters with anti ship missiles and land based anti ship missiles to deny oil exports from Saudi, Kuwait and other gulf states.

Iran could claim it was attacked without reason. It would then see no reason not to speed up its nuclear program (it has the technogy and centrifuges can be dispersed into numerous small underground locations). It would claim that the US was paty to any Saudi action. Iran would start up the insurgency in Iraq, and start supplying sophisticated weapons there, to attack US forces. I suspect guided anti tank weapons would be useful to insurgents.

Iran would start arming insurgent groups is Afganistan more and more. Wih better radios, better SAMs, sophiscitated anti tank guided missiles, the insurgents would be even more effective.

Iran would send fast attack craft across the gulf, with small groups of commandos with orders to destroy oil refineries. Probably they would all be killed, but not before they do a lot of damage.

Then what happens in 4 or 5 years and Iran has the a bomb, what then?

So yes, Iran cant win a conventional war, but an invasion of Iran would be expensive, and very deadly. A mere air power attack would push Iran into developing nuclear weapons. At the moment they seem to be developing their technology and improving their ability to enrich uranium, they have , roughly 6000 gas centrifuges that are known.

What do you do when Iran gets the a bomb. They can claim with a degree of justication that they were attacked with reason, and have the right to fight back.

From a personal point of view, I am no fan of Iran. They have moved from a quasi democracy to a brutal dictatorship.

Iran does not have the high tech to win a conventional war. What they are good at is building hte little things, like RPGs, machine guns, mortars. It is vertically integrated. They make guided anti tank missiles. They have launched their own space satellite.
peterAustralia is offline  
Old November 15th, 2010
TaranisAttack
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: Failing to follow to forum rules
Old November 15th, 2010   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
jaffo4011's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 272
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaranisAttack View Post
[Mod Edit: Flame bait deleted]
can you source or justify that comment please....seems pretty throwaway to me.

Last edited by OPSSG; November 16th, 2010 at 05:47 AM.
jaffo4011 is offline  
Old November 15th, 2010   #12
Just Hatched
Private
jawaboy's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Devon
Posts: 9
Threads:
Does anyone know if the Saudi's have sorted out the maintenace problems they apparently had pre Kuwait invasion?

If they haven't then having all the high tech fighters won't help if they can't fly.
jawaboy is offline  
Old November 16th, 2010   #13
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 20
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaffo4011 View Post
can you source or justify that comment please....seems pretty throwaway to me.
Go do some research and you'll see my point is perfectly valid. If you think I'm writing you a 5 page thesis (when I could be working my own actual thesis!) for your personal pleasure, then you have another thing coming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jawaboy View Post
Does anyone know if the Saudi's have sorted out the maintenace problems they apparently had pre Kuwait invasion?

If they haven't then having all the high tech fighters won't help if they can't fly.
As I think has been said (though it could have been from one of the many other threads on these two air forces), Saudi has foreign contractors do the whole hi-tech maintenance thing. If Saudi ends up in an actual war, its more likely they will ask the USAF and USN to provide some quality air defence.
TaranisAttack is offline  
Old November 16th, 2010   #14
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,503
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaranisAttack View Post
Go do some research and you'll see my point is perfectly valid. If you think I'm writing you a 5 page thesis (when I could be working my own actual thesis!) for your personal pleasure, then you have another thing coming.
Excuse me, but it was your one-liner post (which is against the forum rules, by the way) that was out of line, not the request that you back up what you're saying with actual facts. No one asked for a five page thesis, merely a justification or source for what was a totally throwaway comment.

Dial down the attitude and participate constructively. If you can't handle that, don't participate at all. Simple enough?
Bonza is offline  
Old November 16th, 2010   #15
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 20
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonza View Post
Excuse me, but it was your one-liner post (which is against the forum rules, by the way) that was out of line, not the request that you back up what you're saying with actual facts. No one asked for a five page thesis, merely a justification or source for what was a totally throwaway comment.

Dial down the attitude and participate constructively. If you can't handle that, don't participate at all. Simple enough?
Then ban me

[Mod Edit: Banned as requested]

Last edited by OPSSG; November 16th, 2010 at 05:47 AM.
TaranisAttack is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 PM.