This represents a semantic slip, a subterfuge. You explicitly claimed that the state of Iran's air force is placing Iran in a "very vulnerable position even regionally" (sic). Which is not just akin to saying it generically "affects overall performance", but it very much equals attributing a decisive relevance to air power in the determination of Iran's overall security situation.
Considering there are not all too many other options available to fulfill the roles of an air force, it pretty tends to do so.
Salar-jan, Iran's massive missile inventory would only be able to replace one function of a modern-fighter. And that's striking mainly
fixed targets with access to only sub-optimal ISR.
Here are some of the shortcomings of a missile compared to a multi-role fighter that has proper support.
- Ballistic Missiles cannot actively search for targets in the theatre unless its anti-radiation or anti-ship (results will vary)
- No "man in the loop" to receive in the air updates to change targets based on battle-field priority
- Cannot intercept, anything. Fighters can
- Once used, it cannot be used again. Fighters can be re-armed and loaded with the same amount of ordinances they took off with
- Fighters can be loaded with a diverse array of weapons and mission specific kits, changing with the flow of battle as needed
- Fighters can defend large swathes of territory actively allowing for the rest of the military to function without fear of obliteration. This works well with IADS
- Fighters can be used to penetrate enemy AD and conduct surgical strikes, missiles can do this but their accuracy drops off significantly the further away from launch point the target is
- A fighter can carry a diverse set of weapons allowing it to be used to tackle a multitude of problems in real-time. Both AA and Air-to-ground
- A fighter (especially multi-role) fulfills many different roles
- The amount of firepower allowed by a fighter far outstrips that of a missile since they can carry many more of them at one time. A squadron of fully loaded F-15s (for example) can unleash massive amounts of both dummy and precision fire. Then fly back to base to reload and do it again and again.
- Fighters establish air-superiority and keep the skies clear of enemy airborne assets
- Fighters can provide CAS to frontline units
- Fighters (F-35) can act like an integrated combat-node for overall battlefield awareness. Feeding up-to-date information to command.
- Fighters with AWACS support can lay waste to a vast array of targets due to again, battlefield awareness
- Fighters can "look down" allowing for a way greater amount of enemy assets to be revealed
- Fighters with refueling tankers can conduct extensive raids on enemy fortifications (many such examples of this during the Iran-Iraq war where IRIAF decimated Iraqi military installations using these methods).
- Fighters have longevity to them, they can be upgraded over the course of decades.
Many of my points are repeated but they do warrant repeating. The list goes on and on really. But the main take away is that missiles, no matter how numerous or impressive in combat ability, they just simply will never replace the
need for at-least a somewhat modern air-force. If not to strike and conduct extensive operations. Then at least for interception and general air-defense.