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

[Hellfire]

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

Get personal, throw a few more insults and maybe you will be able to make your case as a case of 'righteous indignation'

Suggest keep the discourse civil. It is always a two way street.

@Arsalan @waz

Gave you the specific instances.

Iran initiated a chemical weapon development program in 1983 “in response to Iraqi use of riot control and toxic chemical agents” during the war. By 1998, the Iranian government had publicly acknowledged that it began a chemical weapon program during the war.

In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”


Comment: Riot Control are very well classified as Chemical Warfare agents.

But as I said earlier, it was often the case of captured Iraqi munitions being used back on them in retaliation, which I totally agree with.

Refer: Jim Davis, "A Biological Warfare Wake-Up Call: Prevalent Myths and Likely Scenarios," The Gathering Biological Warfare Storm [Praeger Publishers, 2004], (Jim Davis and Barry Schneider)

Like I said earlier:

Again, it was your inability to field either chemical weapons in adequate quantities or adequate number of IPEs that is exhibited, not your moral uprightness.

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.

Please go through the exchange and understand the context. Assuming a self righteous indignant approach of the specific poster was being challenged. At no point has it been said Iran initiated any chemical attack. If it has been, please point it out to me where I have claimed that. On the contrary, I have underlined the lack of capability and not some self righteous motivation, as being the driving force, by asserting the strike was carried out from captured weapons.

Quoting my post at #44

I am not saying you initiated it. I am saying, do not paint a picture of self righteous indignation

Again, it was your inability to field either chemical weapons in adequate quantities or adequate number of IPEs that is exhibited, not your moral uprightness. Whenever Iran captured chemical weapons, it used them on Iraqis back (I have not qualms on this, it needs to be done if you are being attacked first).


Further, extract as under:

in April 2003, the Iranian delegate to the OPCW acknowledged that Iran had developed “chemical capabilities” during the last phase of the Iran-Iraq war but claimed that Iran never used these weapons and dismantled them after the cease-fire.

Am sure we both can agree on reliance of not having used them in face of persistent use of chemicals against own troops, is slightly dodgy, especially when the morale is hit.

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.

There are no two views on that. Had you got a nuclear device, I would have supported your use. See above.
Rest, already dealt with, in my post earlier.

Cheers

 

[Nilgiri]

@Persian Gulf 1906 why you using language like that? C'mon you can do better.

 

[Psychic]

The manner in which Muslims choose to fight these days, is utterly cowardly and in stark contrast to the principles of Battle of Badr.

So, you want them to assemble in an open field and get slaughtered by cruise missiles? Since when did waging a guerilla war against a far superior enemy has become cowardly? Geneva conventions grant the right to people to wage guerilla war against an occupier state.
The special forces and intel agencies of "brave nations" also wage war through the same "cowardly" means. Nowadays, champions don't duel before start of general battle---and cowardly people sit in front of computer screens and press a button from the comfort of their secure rooms to blow up dozens of people. Or you want us to ride horses and charge towards enemy Armour formations which according to you will be in-line with the principles of battle of badr.

Or are you going to declare people like Umar Mukhtar the lion of the desert and Imam Shamil as cowards for waging guerilla war against occupiers? Seriously how low can one sink as to discredit the struggle and sacrifices of those who stayed and gave their lives for Islam by twisting and manipulating the so called principles of battle to suit one's own narrative. People who left their homes, family and comfort and live in mountains and deserts to fight an impossible battle against the most technologically advanced nations and risk instant death are according to you, cowards---but those who have chosen a life of comfort like people sitting in front of computer screens here are more principally correct and brave...

Perhaps the principles of battle of Badr is to lick the feet of USA, just like a pdf member and I'll not mention who does...

 

[XTQ1999]

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.

If US decided to attack, they wouldn't just leave Fifth Fleet sitting in the Gulf, they would move the Fifth Fleet at least 300 to 400kms away from your coast, and conduct long range strikes. And you will be powerless against such strikes.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

If US decided to attack, they wouldn't just leave Fifth Fleet sitting in the Gulf, they would move the Fifth Fleet at least 300 to 400kms away from your coast, and conduct long range strikes. And you will be powerless against such strikes.

fateh mobin anti-ship BM range 300-500km (precise range not known, but based on fateh 110/313 series, 110 series range 300km 313 series range 500km), zolfaqar anti-ship BM range 700km, Persian Gulf anti-ship BM range 300km

they can't just move 50,000+ US soldiers all at once.

effectiveness of strikes from outside Persian Gulf is reduced, but sure they could have a lot of success.

Iran initiated a chemical weapon development program in 1983 “in response to Iraqi use of riot control and toxic chemical agents” during the war. By 1998, the Iranian government had publicly acknowledged that it began a chemical weapon program during the war.

In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”

LOL where is the evidence that Iran used CWs?? Your bullshit in blue just says Iran had CWs capability, not that it used them.

Nice try you low IQ liar.

 

[LeGenD]

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

Those were [warning] strikes.

And no cruise missile was shot down. Their is no proof of this outlandish claim.

FYI: https://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/

Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile is extremely difficult to intercept because of its terrain-hugging flight characteristics (mask itself in ground clutter), maneuverability, obstacle avoidance capability, very small RCS (can be RAM coated) and potent EW capabilities.

Even the mighty S-400 system completely failed to detect Tomahawk cruise missiles passing through Hmemmem sector just 30 miles away from its position (Tom Cooper). So much for the marketing of S-400 system.

@Basel
@War Thunder
@Nilgiri
@CriticalThought

Tagged you guys for the highlighted part.

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 ?

[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IEDs
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity to derail political reforms (Terrorism)

 

[War Thunder]

Those were [warning] strikes.

And no cruise missile was shot down. Their is no proof of this outlandish claim.

FYI: https://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/

Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile is extremely difficult to intercept because of its terrain-hugging flight characteristics (mask itself in ground clutter), maneuverability, obstacle avoidance capability, very small RCS (can be RAM coated) and potent EW capabilities.

Even the mighty S-400 system completely failed to detect Tomahawk cruise missiles passing through Hmemmem sector just 30 miles away from its position (Tom Cooper). So much for the marketing of S-400 system.

@Basel
@War Thunder
@Nilgiri
@CriticalThought

Tagged you guys for the highlighted part.


[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IEDs
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity to derail political reforms (Terrorism)

The S-400 is great. But on paper.
It's yet to prove itself in the field.
One would wonder if it was such a potent platform, what would be stopping the Americans from developing something better and why they are so much more confident with their Patriot and Thaad platform instead?
Which supposedly are far inferior to the mighty S-400.

That said, going with the stats on paper.
It still takes a hell of a lot of accurate guessing, positioning, and maneuvering to get an incoming missile.
Now talk about terrain hugging and completely maneuverable missiles like Babur, and you are simply hard to kill because no radar can predict your movement, and even a slight change in course can make a missile over shoot by several kilometers.
That's if you get to isolate the missile from the ground clutter in the first place.

 

[Nilgiri]

Those were [warning] strikes.

And no cruise missile was shot down. Their is no proof of this outlandish claim.

FYI: https://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/

Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile is extremely difficult to intercept because of its terrain-hugging flight characteristics (mask itself in ground clutter), maneuverability, obstacle avoidance capability, very small RCS (can be RAM coated) and potent EW capabilities.

Even the mighty S-400 system completely failed to detect Tomahawk cruise missiles passing through Hmemmem sector just 30 miles away from its position (Tom Cooper). So much for the marketing of S-400 system.

@Basel
@War Thunder
@Nilgiri
@CriticalThought

Tagged you guys for the highlighted part.


[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IEDs
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity to derail political reforms (Terrorism)

Honestly almost everyone just goes with emotions largely at some point... and often feel detection + interception of terrain following missile is the easiest thing ever once you have enough raw amplitude of signal + sensors...not realising that multiple (even ongoing) iterations regarding such detection + interception went into the terrain following algorithms and modules (I have talked with @Signalian about this before as to what may actually be required to intercept...i.e you often need lot more top down sensing + processing capability to cross correlate in real time, esp for an accurate firing solution for interception in the window afforded). Not even going to go into the other masking tech, some of which you have listed too.

I worked on a SAR system design (though not on the actual relevant sensor bits, thats not my expertise) but I have a fairly reasonable idea form my interaction with the team members that did....about the issues present inherently with many sensors when the target "doesnt follow the convention" etc.....and I gained appreciation too that a lot of it is also classified (infact many of those team members were already working simultaneously on techniques in other projects to hide/evade from that systems novelties/cutting edge stuff already).

@jhungary @django @hellfire @Joe Shearer

 

[jhungary]

Honestly almost everyone just goes with emotions largely at some point... and often feel detection + interception of terrain following missile is the easiest thing ever once you have enough raw amplitude of signal + sensors...not realising that multiple (even ongoing) iterations regarding such detection + interception went into the terrain following algorithms and modules (I have talked with @Signalian about this before as to what may actually be required to intercept...i.e you often need lot more top down sensing + processing capability to cross correlate in real time, esp for an accurate firing solution for interception in the window afforded). Not even going to go into the other masking tech, some of which you have listed too.

I worked on a SAR system design (though not on the actual relevant sensor bits, thats not my expertise) but I have a fairly reasonable idea form my interaction with the team members that did....about the issues present inherently with many sensors when the target "doesnt follow the convention" etc.....and I gained appreciation too that a lot of it is also classified (infact many of those team members were already working simultaneously on techniques in other projects to hide/evade from that systems novelties/cutting edge stuff already).

@jhungary @django @hellfire @Joe Shearer

One can talk a lot about stuff like this, but at the end of the day, all we can do is talk about it, it may be right, or it maybe wrong, you don't know.

Problem with this is then it become everybody's game, I mean I will have my own view about something, you will have yours. We cannot neither confirm or reject anyone else claim, unless the system developer come out and say who's right and who's wrong, and I am sure this is probably never going to happen.

 

[Nilgiri]

One can talk a lot about stuff like this, but at the end of the day, all we can do is talk about it, it may be right, or it maybe wrong, you don't know.

Problem with this is then it become everybody's game, I mean I will have my own view about something, you will have yours. We cannot neither confirm or reject anyone else claim, unless the system developer come out and say who's right and who's wrong, and I am sure this is probably never going to happen.

Yep exactly...besides...I really find typing to be quite nuisance (so I skip lot of stuff tbh..esp since its just a forum and its not my job just a hobby heh). I explain things verbally lot better in real time.

But the key thing everyone should know its not simple black and white picture in cat and mouse military tech development.

 

[War Thunder]

Yep exactly...besides...I really find typing to be quite nuisance (so I skip lot of stuff tbh..esp since its just a forum and its not my job just a hobby heh). I explain things verbally lot better in real time.

But the key thing everyone should know its not simple black and white picture in cat and mouse military tech development.

I can always lend a free copy of "Dragon Naturally Speaking" to whoever likes typing by speaking.
The most accurate thingy there is lol.

Going back to the topic.
I put more trust on American tech tbh, they are more transparent about it, and you have all the details out in the public domain quite often.
With Russians or Chinese, it's all about claims and blind faith.
And no one knows how that blind faith is going to translate into battlefield prowess.

It's true the S-400 has reportedly taken out some test drones and missiles, launched by Russia itself.
But the patriot is taking out Yemeni missiles and rockets launched at the Saudis almost every other week. And that's the difference both bring to the table.

 

[Nilgiri]

I can always lend a free copy of "Dragon Naturally Speaking" to whoever likes typing by speaking.
The most accurate thingy there is lol.

LOL, I mean more like having face to face conversation and dialogue etc.(and how explaining/debate proceeds more organically in all that)... I can type about as fast as speech recognition software I find....but its just not the same.

Rest of your post I agree with. In the end actual sustained great-power conflict is really the only ultimate crucible of truth in the end....but that is something we of course do not want to see for many other reasons. Quite the Catch-22.

 

[CriticalThought]

Honestly almost everyone just goes with emotions largely at some point... and often feel detection + interception of terrain following missile is the easiest thing ever once you have enough raw amplitude of signal + sensors...not realising that multiple (even ongoing) iterations regarding such detection + interception went into the terrain following algorithms and modules (I have talked with @Signalian about this before as to what may actually be required to intercept...i.e you often need lot more top down sensing + processing capability to cross correlate in real time, esp for an accurate firing solution for interception in the window afforded). Not even going to go into the other masking tech, some of which you have listed too.

I worked on a SAR system design (though not on the actual relevant sensor bits, thats not my expertise) but I have a fairly reasonable idea form my interaction with the team members that did....about the issues present inherently with many sensors when the target "doesnt follow the convention" etc.....and I gained appreciation too that a lot of it is also classified (infact many of those team members were already working simultaneously on techniques in other projects to hide/evade from that systems novelties/cutting edge stuff already).

@jhungary @django @hellfire @Joe Shearer

@LeGenD

A terrain following missile may dupe a single radar or even an AEWACS but it cannot do much against a carefully designed multi layer air defence system comprising both SAM batteries of various ranges as well as old school AA batteries. In terrain hugging mode it will be identified and neutralized through AA fire before it is able to reach the well defended target. Saturation is the only technique against this, and saturation is what the Americans did.

Now take into account the recent Russian jamming of GPS signals during a NATO exercise and you can see that it is easy to take out the very eyes of cruise missiles. That leaves things like TERCOM which again relies on sensors. As a matter of fact, even ground avoidance in terrain following mode relies on sensors. And as soon as you have sensors, you have a weak point.

This is why it would take an air campaign lasting many months to take out a well constructed air defence system.

 

[Hack-Hook]

[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IEDs
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity to derail political reforms (Terrorism)

well as for your 5th point as if the modern armies like USA and Israel and Eu and ..... will differentiate between soft and hard target.
as for your 2nd point , I don't see any different between IED and ATGM's
and for your 6th point how many political opponents CIA and Mossad and KGB killed on foreign lands for their agenda
for first point again I don't consider it terrorism but the context that the guy use it is important attacking a barrack with g3 is also a suicide attack , ramming them with an explosive filed trucks after breaking several road block is also suicide attack non of them is terrorism bombing a bazaar is terrorism no difference if its a suicide bomber or a B-52 pilot who do the bombing.
as your 3rd point both hezbollah and IRGC use Assymetricl warfare and both of them use uniforms and have insignia and so.


about your 4th point were it is written that asymmetrical warfare means hiding among civilian and how on earth you are supposed to defend a city when it come to fighting street to street if some people don't get in fire line.
and a question why these won't make a classical army a terrorist group but make an asymmetrical one a terrorist ?
Kashmir

Palestine

USA

Vincent Emanuele, a Marine rifleman who spent a year in the al-Qaim area of Iraq near the Syrian border, told of emptying magazines of bullets into the city without identifying targets, running over corpses with Humvees and stopping to take “trophy” photos of bodies.

Scott Ewing, Cavalry Scout, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, US Army, who served in Iraq in the 2005-2006 period, stated that US troops would give candy to Iraqi children so they would stay around their vehicles, thereby making more likely that "the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields".[95][96][97]

Or brave CNN host in Haithi

or I don't recall anyone called Brave British soldiers in north Ireland as terrorist, but certainly the called Irish the terrorists

let be honest if they are with us they are angel if they are against us they are terrorists
and were was the last time anybody in west called FSA as terrorist .

 

[Basel]

Those were [warning] strikes.

And no cruise missile was shot down. Their is no proof of this outlandish claim.

FYI: https://warisboring.com/russias-air-defenses-in-syria-have-some-big-problems/

Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile is extremely difficult to intercept because of its terrain-hugging flight characteristics (mask itself in ground clutter), maneuverability, obstacle avoidance capability, very small RCS (can be RAM coated) and potent EW capabilities.

Even the mighty S-400 system completely failed to detect Tomahawk cruise missiles passing through Hmemmem sector just 30 miles away from its position (Tom Cooper). So much for the marketing of S-400 system.

@Basel
@War Thunder
@Nilgiri
@CriticalThought

Tagged you guys for the highlighted part.


[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IEDs
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity to derail political reforms (Terrorism)

There are several things which look big on paper but on ground they are not 100% of what is on paper because of several issues / circumstances.