@TheImmortal
" I agree. However, your rebuttal merely serves my point in that SU-57 is more a defense fighter jet rather than a fighter jet ment to penetrate foreign airspace and cause havoc. "
The F-22 can get closer to emitters, the Su-57 fly faster and farther, which one is better for penetration?
F-22 penetration of a modern IADS is questionable anyway: Stealth primarily helps it survive air to air engagements.
" Iranian F-5 and F-4 cannot handle a 150-200 daily sortie rate stress on their airframes. Even assuming they wouldn’t be attacked by foreign adversaries or that it wouldn’t lead to other adversaries to bring their own airforce into Syria theater, Iran’s F-5s and F-4s are not made for heavy constant sortie counts this far into their life cycle. They are basically reserve assets to use in an all out war. "
Basically yes, but this would only increase costs and necessary airframe numbers.
F-5 however could handle it, but its armament and speed would make it not effective nor survivable.
" With such logic your AD fleet would also be toast as Hypersonic missiles would destroy major radar Installations and defense batteries that simply do not have the Kinetic energy penalty to be able to intercept a Hypersonic missile either in the atmosphere or during terminal phase. let’s not go down that rabbit hole, shall we? "
If not Hypersonic weapons then CMs. Mobility of AD assets make them survivable, airbases not.
"But to answer your question it’s simple: mountain air bases. Iran can have 75 air superiority fighters scattered inside mountain air bases that each hold up 12-25 fighters which take off and land and are well fortified. If it can do it for BMs it can do it for airplanes.
The concept is not unheard of. Even in WW2 airplanes were stored in underground bunkers to protect against air threats.
Again Iran doesn’t need to store ALL of its 200-300 aircraft. But the air superiority ones can be well fortified to assist the AD network during the war. Again the goal of Iran airforce is to prevent complete collapse of AD network, it’s not ment to fly into other countries and do bombing runs. "
Thats a futuristic concept.
Storing a weapon is not the goal, a weapon must operate during war.
Iran was lucky that the U.S was stopped by the INF treaty, with this gone, even deep central mainbases like Esfahan are at high risk.
But ok, as long as airpower plays a siderole, we can ignore its basing vulnerability.
" The point remains an IRGC AD team thought a CM made it all the way to Tehran from the PG. "
I'm not really a fanboy hence: Yes that fear was justified.
The U.S is is country that has satellites to create a electronic battlefield map: It will find weakspots and send CM, as deep as Tehran area, even on the first night.
Soon hypersonic weapons will add to that, not only air launched but land based ones.
The enemy is not to be underestimated. Any non-hardned static weapon system is at high risk in future and airpower is just that.
" Are there going to be warehouses in the desert, mountains and rural areas? Modern fighter jets release payloads from up to 150KM away. No fighter jet needs to fly over cities or developed areas unless absolutely required to do so. If you are relying on ADs systems hiding in warehouses to thwart the enemy you have already lost the air space. "
Warehouses was and example and yes, there are enough such places all around Iran to hide such a small truck size vehicle like the 3rd Khordad.
Airspace is contested anyway, Iran is not Russia. However when enemy airpower operates at risk, it will degrade lets say 50% of its performance. Just by having 100 3rd Khordad TELARs around the country you degrade 50% of enemy airpower-firepower for the first month: A quite good deal if you ask me.
" wether Iran gets there or doesn’t is irrelevant as every major power will field manned aircraft well into the future because EW is much harder with a human inside the cockpit. So the decision you are making is to rely entirely on AD systems to hold the line. Too dangerous. "
Airpower helps if its cost-effect calculation competes against other concepts.
Iran will get its own airpower at some point for expeditionary purposes.
But is it critical at this point? No.
Even without a AD system, Irans low footprint solid BM force as well as hardened liquid BM force would inflict quite a high amount of damage to any enemy.
Just like IADS is now getting strong, airpower will also come back at some point, its just low on the priority list.
First you say air force is not needed and useless against #1 USA. Now you say “300 5th gen Iranian fighters can be justified”. Why because it’s “Iranian”? You are either for air power or you are against. It either fits in your over arching defense philosophy or it doesn’t. You can’t cherry pick.
No contradiction, just priorities.
In 2030-40 airframe Iran will need to project power, hence a Iranian fighter jet will be needed.
2020, 50 F-14, 20 Mig-29 and 100 F-4E will be sufficient to take the stress on the IADS away.
60 Su-35 would increase that pressure relieve to a good extend.
And yes, because its Iranian: State sponsored industrial development program that could open export markets.
In the meantime, a stop gap is needed (which I have repeatedly said) of Russian jets. I am not sure where you got 250 SU-57 from as that’s an absurd number. Nonetheless 48-60 SU-57 to cover the retiring(storage) of F-14 fleet and providing back up to SU-30 fleet would be a sound investment.
Such a stop gap would be good, not really needed: 300 3rd Khordad TELARs could be a better choice than 60 Su-35.
250 Su-57 was just a IRIAF revival scenario many dream of and a number that could convince the Russians to sell the Su-57.
