Air Battle: What If an F-14 (That Iran Still Flies) Battled a Stealth F-22 Raptor?

[PakSarzameen5823]

Regardless, attacking Iran is not wise. They can target nearby US bases and precious oil-related installations in the region if threatened with air strikes, and a ground invasion would result in the US having to deal with another insurgency (which they're not exactly the best at handling).

The cost is too great, unless the US is willing to just take a nuclear dump on them (which they won't, for obvious reasons).

and Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan

To be fair, he only moved there from Afghanistan sometime during the invasion.

 

[LeGenD]

The US can't defeat the Iranian regime with just airstrikes and anything the US can destroy can be rebuilt.

Iran will retain its BMs stored underground and the IRGC can be weakened but nothing close to destroyed, same with Iranian proxies through the region. All airstrikes could achieve is to further weaken Iran's airforce and navy (both barely exist as it is) and its air defence (mostly domestic so can be rebuilt easy + the rest Russia will happily reinforce as in Syria). Any US ships dumb enough to be in the Persian Gulf would be destroyed and US bases across the ME would suffer huge losses.

Doesn't seem worth it to me, but with military geniuses like you who knows what is possible.

Saddam Hussein's statements:-

AT THE START OF GULF WAR - January 1991:

"When the deaths and dead mount for them, the infidels will leave and the flag of Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest) will fly over the mother of all battles."

DURING THE GULF WAR - February 1991:

"We will chase to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."

ON IMMINENT U.S. ATTACK - Jan 17, 2003

"They will commit suicide on the walls of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities ... The entire nation will rise up in defense of its right to life, of its role and of anything it holds sacred."

Boasting does not make your assertion credible. And no country wins a war with conventionally-armed ballistic missiles. Iraqi armed forces subjected US military bases across the Middle East, and Israel, to 91 ballistic missile strikes in total, back in 1991, and did this change anything? If you think that American military assets are lacking in cutting-edge defenses, then you are just as blind as Saddam Hussein was. They have sufficient scientific prowess to develop stuff which other countries are unable to replicate or mass-produce.

Iran cannot defeat US in a conventional war, and/or with conventionally-armed ballistic missile strikes. These are asymmetric responses to complex targets, but they do not ensure desirable outcome. No country in the world is eager to confront US with "military options" on its own.

 

[waz]

That's what I thought you dumb lying piece of shit, go back to shitting in the streets and leave history and facts to people who don't stink


You left your mother's bedroom again?

I never said Iran will defeat the US so your entire post is bullshit, as usual.

Leave the personal remarks out of this.

Hey if you ask me which one I'd rather fly in, the answer is obvious haha...of course the Tomcat. Age is merely a number, the spirit is eternal!

Just like I would pick a lot of WW2 planes over todays modern jet fighters. I mean even a B-grade athlete today would probably (even easily) beat Jesse Owens in most track/field disciplines (given progress of training regimen and sport science etc)....but who's name do we really remember in the end? It speaks to that aspect of it I feel.

So there is an eternal presence, deeper worth and higher "soul" of an aircraft past its absolute "numbers" power projection.

I am actually in another somewhat closed forum where a huge amount of time has been devoted by lot of experts and military vets to rank aircraft power across all time....esp for use in alternate history debates...I think they originally used the sopwith camel as the base reference 1 point heh. But no one there is going to say F-22 etc.. as their favourite (just because it has highest "power" number).

@jhungary @gambit @LeGenD @Vergennes @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Joe Shearer @TOPGUN @waz @Arsalan @hellfire @Oscar @Marine Rouge @Game.Invade

I'd like to fly the Spitfire, the plane of legends!

As for the article, the F-22 is the benchmark for any other 5th generation jet, the chances that something 2 generations behind stands a chance in a straight fight are very remote.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Iran - used limited chemical strikes in Basrah against Iraqi Army III Corps tasked with defence there in April 1987 and mustard gas in 2nd week

If I'm correct you mean Karbala-5 operaton that Iran come to 12km of Basra . In that operation it was saddam who used chemical weapon on Iran supply route and cites as a result 3000 Iranian civilian died (the war become a trench war in that operation so it was impossible to use chemical weapon in front line) now if you have a single evidence that Iran used chemical weapon in all the course of war everybody here will be glad to look at it but let me warn you before hand UN could not find any evidence on that issue and declared all the claims that Iran used chemical weapons were baseless.
well if you cant provide any evidence on the matter every Iranian here expect you apologize as the matter is one of the most sensitive issue in Iran history and even after 30 years from the war we still deal with the complication of those bombings.
by the way according to the international laws of those time you were allowed to retaliate against enemy if he attacked you with chemical weapons and it was Iran who pioneered the change of law that made even that illegal.

Most of the casualties were on the ground, and due to enemy switching to asymmetric methods of warfare. The manner in which Muslims choose to fight these days, is utterly cowardly and in stark contrast to the principles of Battle of Badr.

How Asymmetric warfare is cowardice , but use of Stealth airplane ans Firing cruise missiles from 2000km away or glide bomb from 300km away is not cowardice ?

No free history lessons for you now. Look it up! Am not here to do your legwork for you. My aim was to give you hints for your own use. So that you avoid assuming a position which remains untenable.

Look for it. You will find some mentions on google in open sources too Hashish, yeah right

so please go and search the Google on the matter

 

[Nilgiri]

Leave the personal remarks out of this.



I'd like to fly the Spitfire, the plane of legends!

As for the article, the F-22 is the benchmark for any other 5th generation jet, the chances that something 2 generations behind stands a chance in a straight fight are very remote.

If I ever flew one....the merlin engine whirring might... just might drown out Ron Goodwin's theme of "Battle of Britain" that would inevitably be filling my head full to the sinuses from start to finish

@Joe Shearer @hellfire @Indus Pakistan @Signalian @LeGenD @django

 

[waz]

If I ever flew one....the merlin engine whirring might... just might drown out Ron Goodwin's theme of "Battle of Britain" that would inevitably be filling my head full to the sinuses from start to finish

@Joe Shearer @hellfire @Indus Pakistan @Signalian @LeGenD @django

You just named one of the Brexit battle tunes hahah. RIP Ron Goodwin, what a musical genius.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

That arrogance cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers in countless illegal American invasions over the last 50 years.

america has never been defeated in conventional war however when it comes down to unconventional usa does suck at it and so will any invading forces.
as for iranian f14 vs f22. it will never come to that because 100 tomahawk will be enough to cripple entire iranian air force and what ever will be left will be abandoned in fear of more strikes.

 

[XTQ1999]

Regardless, attacking Iran is not wise. They can target nearby US bases and precious oil-related installations in the region if threatened with air strikes, and a ground invasion would result in the US having to deal with another insurgency (which they're not exactly the best at handling).

The cost is too great, unless the US is willing to just take a nuclear dump on them (which they won't, for obvious reasons).



To be fair, he only moved there from Afghanistan sometime during the invasion.

The only major base US has in the region that Iran would target is the one in Qatar. That base mostly constitutes of long range refueling aircraft and bombers, US would have no problem relocating those to Turkey or other bases. What will Iran hit then? while US will use the full power of its Navy, with thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles and aircraft to deliver critical strikes against every piece of Iranian infrastructure.

US is also the biggest producer of oil, and itself doesn't rely on oil from Middle East, they rely on oil price stability that Middle East provides. If Iran targets that oil infrastructure, they will have a regional war on their hands, with entire region attacking them. That is if Iran can even target them. Both Saudis and UAE are buying large number of THAADs.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

america has never been defeated in conventional war however when it comes down to unconventional usa does suck at it and so will any invading forces.
as for iranian f14 vs f22. it will never come to that because 100 tomahawk will be enough to cripple entire iranian air force and what ever will be left will be abandoned in fear of more strikes.

it took the US 103 cruise missiles to destroy 1-3 buildings in Syria (71 were shot down).

 

[XTQ1999]

it took the US 103 cruise missiles to destroy 1-3 buildings in Syria (71 were shot down).

US Fired 103 cruise missiles for display of power, it only takes a few cruise missiles to disrupt operations of an airfield. take out fuel reserves, air control station and munition building, and you don't even need to target the aircraft on the ground.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

US Fired 103 cruise missiles for display of power, it only takes a few cruise missiles to disrupt operations of an airfield. take out fuel reserves, air control station and munition building, and you don't even need to target the aircraft on the ground.

The US's strikes against Syria's Shayrat airbase in Homs with 60 cruise missiles was even more of a failure, jets were flying from the very same runways the next day.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

The only major base US has in the region that Iran would target is the one in Qatar. That base mostly constitutes of long range refueling aircraft and bombers, US would have no problem relocating those to Turkey or other bases. What will Iran hit then? while US will use the full power of its Navy, with thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles and aircraft to deliver critical strikes against every piece of Iranian infrastructure.

The US has 54,000 soldiers and 7 military bases in the ME.

US Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, only 200-300km from Iran's coast.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

it took the US 103 cruise missiles to destroy 1-3 buildings in Syria (71 were shot down).

The main purpose of the attack was to deter Assad gov from using chemical weapons and show power. Does your stupid dumb az seriously think that US need 100 cruise missile to destroy 1 - 2 buildings? If they had intention to destroy infrastructure then entire syria would have been wiped out.
btw coming back to topic. f-14 vs f22 actually b-52 wins because entire iran airforce will be gone in preemptive air strike

 

[XTQ1999]

The US's strikes against Syria's Shayrat airbase in Homs with 60 cruise missiles was even more of a failure, jets were flying from the very same runways the next day.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/

did you even look at photos of those aircraft? US probably thought those aircraft weren't in flying condition, and out of the entire air base only 5 ancient aircraft survived, you call that a victory? in real war, US can just target those aircraft again.

The US has 54,000 soldiers and 7 military bases in the ME.

US Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, only 200-300km from Iran's coast.

Fifth Fleet can move and conduct strikes 400kms from your coast, and with stealthy refueling drones, F-35C and Bs can conduct operations deep inside Iran. and you are forgetting one thing, striking bases in foreign countries is a declaration of war. You might think Iran is some superpower, but the reality is, you have the most outdated military in the ME, and cannot handle a war against a single nation, let alone an entire region.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

The main purpose of the attack was to deter Assad gov from using chemical weapons and show power. Does your stupid dumb az seriously think that US need 100 cruise missile to destroy 1 - 2 buildings? If they had intention to destroy infrastructure then entire syria would have been wiped out.

Yeah they really showed "power" by wasting 100+ cruise missiles for minimal results lmfao.

did you even look at photos of those aircraft? US probably thought those aircraft weren't in flying condition, and out of the entire air base only 5 ancient aircraft survived, you call that a victory? in real war, US can just target those aircraft again.

Fifth Fleet can move and conduct strikes 400kms from your coast, and with stealthy refueling drones, F-35C and Bs can conduct operations deep inside Iran. and you are forgetting one thing, striking bases in foreign countries is a declaration of war. You might think Iran is some superpower, but the reality is, you have the most outdated military in the ME, and cannot handle a war against a single nation, let alone an entire region.

Fifth Fleet would be destroyed in the first few hours of any conflict if the US is ever dumb enough to attack Iran. The US knows this, that's why they haven't dared to attack Iran.