U.S. Will Not Let Iran Buy Arms When U.N. Embargo Ends: Pompeo

[GWXP]

Yeah. The guy who doesn't know the difference between a jet fighter and WWII airplanes like Spitfire and P-51 is really the one to talk about military. And the best proof of your stupidity and being a fanboy is that you think people were trying to prove air force is useless while people are talking about a completely different thing and you're completely clueless. Well, honestly I didn't expect more of you. You're a joke on this forum. You're the same joke who opened a thread about Iran acquiring biological weapons. Aren't you?

Who cares about the difference between jet fighter and wwii airplanes...germans produced first cruise/ballistic/anti-ship/air defense/anti-tank and smart bomb....Yet they lost the war...because war is not just about making 1700 hits at powerplants and airfields.

And yes it was me who opened a thread about biological weapons....any argument?

Failed operations? Kaman 99 was a successful operation. Did you even read what I wrote? 150 up to date modern, well-upgraded, US made jet fighters at that time bombed Iraqi airports and established air superiority over Iraq for the first 2 years of war. Yet, we were losing battles on the ground regardless of having established air superiority. Now continue with how amazing 130 Su-30's will be for winning wars.

Kid, ....Air force was of little utility for Iran and you lost battles of the ground because Iranian air force was incapable of high rates of sorties, due to lack of ammunitions and spare parts

You are free to discuss air force role in 1991 Gulf War and Arab Israeli Wars and Yougoslavia.

Your very claim of little utility of "130 Su-30's" simply makes you the kind of boy which doesn;t even worth time to answer

Well, you can't tell the difference between a government's budget and GDP. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between oil storage facilities and oil production facilities. I didn't expect more from you.

LOL...You claimed that 34bln is turkish budget revenue from tourism in times when 34bln is part of Turkish GDP from tourism and yet you claim that I don't know the difference....LOL.

Wasn't you the kid who claimed that you ballistic missiles launches will destroy economy of entire Turkey?

Abqaiq is oil stabilization facility...

I just explained to you why the Iraq-Iran war experience taught us that accurate missiles are a better, more economic option for us. And now that UCAVs are there, there's a lot that can happen in future wars.

You are free to invent your personal amateurish theories of warfare, kid, you can also learn from video games.

It's a fantasy that is shared by the US as well. As their major recent attacks on Syria used tens of tomahawk missiles to destroy several Syrian airfields.

Did somebody here talked about tomohawks----after tomohawks 90.000 aircraft sorties follow as example of 1991 gulf war shows

I'd rather believe an Iranian general that some internet warrior whose best examples of warfare refers to World War II. LMAO

You can also believe Iranian generals claim that F-313 is a 5th generation fighter

You don't know shit about Iraq-Iran war. Why would I waste my time on you? Go educate yourself, kid.

You don't know shit about modern warfare, so please don't waste my time with your idiotic theories

 

[Cthulhu]

An AD network without a properly functioning air force complementing it will be suppressed very fast, Iran needs to acquire new fighter jets to fill the existing gap in the air force.

 

[zartosht]

An AD network without a properly functioning air force complementing it will be suppressed very fast, Iran needs to acquire new fighter jets to fill the existing gap in the air force.

please explain a real world scenario where any potential Iranian enemy (even turkey included) not named the US would be able to "surpress very fast" Irans air defense network . not even the US could do it fast or easy. Irans mobile air defense systems designed for a war with the US...

I would put serious money that not even an extended US bombing campaign lasting months could fully silence Irans air defense and give an enemy air force a free hand.. Iran has put enormous effort and resources into survivability of its forces (something everybody here conveniently leaves out in their air force argument).

 

[QWECXZ]

Who cares about the difference between jet fighter and wwii airplanes...germans produced first cruise/ballistic/anti-ship/air defense/anti-tank and smart bomb....Yet they lost the war...because war is not just about making 1700 hits at powerplants and airfields.

No, war is about having 130 Su-30's obviously. (smirks)

And yes it was me who opened a thread about biological weapons....any argument?

Yeah, it was a ridiculous thread. Like the most of the things you write here.

Kid, ....Air force was of little utility for Iran and you lost battles of the ground because Iranian air force was incapable of high rates of sorties, due to lack of ammunitions and spare parts

Iranian Air Force did not suffer from lack of ammunition or spare parts in the first two years of war. The first two years of war, we had over 150 top-notch operational jet fighters and we flew as many sorties as we needed. Yet, Iraq was invading Iran. In later years where IAF was being grounded due to lack of spare parts, we were invading Iraq. Get your facts straight, kid.

You are free to discuss air force role in 1991 Gulf War and Arab Israeli Wars and Yougoslavia.

As a matter of fact, even in the 6 day war, the reason that Arabs succumbed so fast was because Israel surprisingly damaged their air fields and their numerous jet fighters became useless. But you believe damaging civilian and military infrastructures in a war is useless because it will be fixed in hours (big LOL). So, it's useless to discuss it with you.

Your very claim of little utility of "130 Su-30's" simply makes you the kind of boy which doesn;t even worth time to answer

Then don't. I will be more than happy to stop wasting time on you.

LOL...You claimed that 34bln is turkish budget revenue from tourism in times when 34bln is part of Turkish GDP from tourism and yet you claim that I don't know the difference....LOL.

Even now you can't tell the difference. As I said, I don't expect more from you.

Wasn't you the kid who claimed that you ballistic missiles launches will destroy economy of entire Turkey?

Nobody said it would destroy the economy of Turkey, but yes, it will inflict heavy damage on the Turkish economy. Tourism, real estate, foreign direct investments, all will be heavily hurt.

Abqaiq is oil stabilization facility...

They hit 14 storage tanks. Check satellite photos.

Did somebody here talked about tomohawks----after tomohawks 90.000 aircraft sorties follow as example of 1991 gulf war shows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

You can also believe Iranian generals claim that F-313 is a 5th generation fighter

I still believe those generals more than a person who doesn't know what a jet engine is and which country invented them and used them for the first time.

You don't know shit about modern warfare, so please don't waste my time with your idiotic theories

Of course, it's me who talks about examples from World War II, not you. LMAO

Now stop wasting my time, kid. Go play your video games.

 

[GWXP]

No, war is about having 130 Su-30's obviously. (smirks)


Yeah, it was a ridiculous thread. Like the most of the things you write here.


Iranian Air Force did not suffer from lack of ammunition or spare parts in the first two years of war. The first two years of war, we had over 150 top-notch operational jet fighters and we flew as many sorties as we needed. Yet, Iraq was invading Iran. In later years where IAF was being grounded due to lack of spare parts, we were invading Iraq. Get your facts straight, kid.


As a matter of fact, even in the 6 day war, the reason that Arabs succumbed so fast was because Israel surprisingly damaged their air fields and their numerous jet fighters became useless. But you believe damaging civilian and military infrastructures in a war is useless because it will be fixed in hours (big LOL). So, it's useless to discuss it with you.


Then don't. I will be more than happy to stop wasting time on you.


Even now you can't tell the difference. As I said, I don't expect more from you.


Nobody said it would destroy the economy of Turkey, but yes, it will inflict heavy damage on the Turkish economy. Tourism, real estate, foreign direct investments, all will be heavily hurt.


They hit 14 storage tanks. Check satellite photos.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike


I still believe those generals more than a person who doesn't know what a jet engine is and which country invented them and used them for the first time.


Of course, it's me who talks about examples from World War II, not you. LMAO

Now stop wasting my time, kid. Go play your video games.

You can believe whatever you want...A person who believes airpower is useless and missiles are better....you need to write your own personal military theory and maybe entire world will listen to you and disarm their air forces and stick to missiles. LOL

 

[QWECXZ]

You can believe whatever you want...A person who believes airpower is useless and missiles are better....you need to write your own personal military theory and maybe entire world will listen to you and disarm their air forces and stick to missiles. LOL

You once again proved what I said about you earlier:

you think people were trying to prove air force is useless while people are talking about a completely different thing and you're completely clueless about what they are trying to tell you

See? I told you that you are clueless. Anyway, I think this is it. Thanks for the entertainment. No hard feelings, bro. See you later.

 

[GWXP]

Yeah, it was a ridiculous thread. Like the most of the things you write here.

Ridiculous is your stupidity and what you claim about airpower.....

As a matter of fact, even in the 6 day war, the reason that Arabs succumbed so fast was because Israel surprisingly damaged their air fields and their numerous jet fighters became useless.

Another reason is air support for attacking Israeli army...go learn some facts, kid...and call me when your crappy missiles take out enemy's airfield with the same effect as Israel did in 1967

Then don't. I will be more than happy to stop wasting time on you.

So why do you waste time on me...you better start your own military academy and talk there about your idiotic theories about airpower and missiles---maybe someone will listen to you

Even now you can't tell the difference. As I said, I don't expect more from you.

You are free to tell me the difference.....dumb enough to claim that Turkish government budget gets 34bln$ from tourism and then claim that I dont know the difference while not providing argument for his dumb statement LOL.

I still believe those generals more than a person who doesn't know what a jet engine is and which country invented them and used them for the first time.

Who cares about jet engine...what is the point with jet engine...we are talking airpower here and you talk bullshit about jet engines.

You dont need to believe me....But you have a choice to choose between IRGC propaganda and US General McKenzie confession to US Congress...like a total fanboy you choose propaganda...

And your statement about 25000 missiles is a BIG LOL that shows your level of intellect

Of course, it's me who talks about examples from World War II, not you.

You are free to argue whats wrong with examples from WWII....All conventional military forces are organized today in a same blitzkrieg manner as WWII.

I also talked 1991Gulf War and Arab-Israeli wars and Yougoslavia---air power was crucial...and even debate that airpower is of little utility is ridiculous...even a kid knows that airpower is a king....kid knows while you dont

 

[QWECXZ]

Ridiculous is your stupidity and what you claim about airpower.....

Another reason is air support for attacking Israeli army...go learn some facts, kid...and call me when your crappy missiles take out enemy's airfield with the same effect as Israel did in 1967

So why do you waste time on me...you better start your own military academy and talk there about your idiotic theories about airpower and missiles---maybe someone will listen to you

You are free to tell me the difference.....dumb enough to claim that Turkish government budget gets 34bln$ from tourism and then claim that I dont know the difference while not providing argument for his dumb statement LOL.

Who cares about jet engine...what is the point with jet engine...we are talking airpower here and you talk bullshit about jet engines.

I dont need to believe me....But you have a choice to choose between IRGC propaganda and US General McKenzie confession to US Congress...like a total fanboy you choose propaganda...

And your statement about 25000 missiles is a BIG LOL that shows your level of intellect

You are free to argue whats wrong with examples from WWII....All conventional military forces are organized today in a same blitzkrieg manner as WWII.

I also talked 1991Gulf War and Arab-Israeli wars and Yougoslavia---air power was crucial...and even debate that airpower is of little utility is ridiculous...even a kid knows that airpower is a king....kid knows while you dont

Kid, really. Stop writing nonsense. It's over. Bye bye

 

[GWXP]

Kid, really. Stop writing nonsense. It's over. Bye bye

Bye....and think about my advice to start own military academy with specialization on missiles.

 

[Blue In Green]

Okay guys lol, there is no way that the Qaher-313 is an actual 5th generation fighter....I mean it would be really nice to believe that such a thing would be possible for Iran to produce but come on man. Let's not go overboard here, Iran has a long way to go before reaching that sort of indigenous production capability.

 

[Philosopher]

At no point did any Iranian general claim Qaher was a "5th generation fighter". People should refrain from posting disinformation please. It is a technology demonstrator for a plane designed to fly low, to be used in the Persian Gulf. They said this right when the mockup was revealed. It is not a dedicated air superiority fighter, as evident by its design.

 

[zartosht]

Bye....and think about my advice to start own military academy with specialization on missiles.

don't take debates personally my friend... that's the whole point of a forum.

what you say in theory is not completely wrong. Airpower is massive. but what you fail to take into account is Iran's unique geopolitical situation. and the fact that war tactics actually evolve over time (something Iran puts enormous research and thought into)

for thousands of years. cavalry was the king of the battlefield. firearms and cannons couldn't even change this equation. It was like this all the way until ww1 dramatically changed this with the machine gun. over night cavalry was dead as you could easily slaughter a cavalry charge with a few machine gunners.

the armies went into dug in trenches. it was thought then manuevure warfare was dead. as modern weapons made it easy to mass slaughter men ,and it was considered foolish to send in men charging against machine guns.

The French expert commanders noted this and famously built the Maginot line. a supposed invincible defensive line that no german army could pass.. Then the germans developed their combined arms manuevure warfare that laughed at the face of French theory and showed off the importance of air power.

Israel was also convinced of this 100% right up to 2006. When a month of non stop bombing with everything their military had (including emergency restock flights by the US). they could not defeat a few hundred dug in Hezbollah men using Iranian style tactics of dug in/ yet mobile atgm heavy infantry using hit and run tactics.

This force can weather and survive airstrikes, shred invading enemy forces, and have a survivable missle force to counter attack the enemy territory non-stop to put massive pressure on them to quickly end the war.

No western force has yet to offer a response to this.

Iran has prepared this sort of scenario x 1000 against a potential US style invasion named the "mosaic doctrine"

 

[Philosopher]

It appears that member is confusing the reasons provided as to why Iran is not investing in a large airforce with this notion that airforce is not important. No one is claiming airforce is not important or potent. That's not the argument put forward by anyone here.

 

[PeeD]

Its a legit question why China and Russia do not emphasis as much as Iran on their BM force and why they still have conventional airpower.

1. BMs were traditionally only really useful when nuclear. Only the Scud was cheap and simple enough to be used conventionally and out to its 300km had some kind of sufficient accuracy against areal targets.
Then came the Tochka that had tactical level accuracy but at very limited range
But Soviets always had nuclear warheads for their better BMs the Oka and Pioneer and hence those missiles were not cost efficient conventionally.
The Chinese had a similar situation: Initially their BMs were primary nuclear tipped. Quite expensive solid fuel designs that made no economic sense to be used conventionally and they also lacked accuracy for that task.

2. Both states has their airforce as a influential state institution back from the days when conventional airpower was the most powerful asset. They had no gap and developed themselves continuously and importantly ingeniously.
Hence their airpower concept was always in competition with air defense and ballistic/cruise missile forces.
They fight not to loose their jobs basically.

3. With the Oka, Soviets finally went into the right direction, it was expensive but quite accurate to take out high value objects conventionally. The U.S of course insisted the Oka arsenal to be demolished even in its conventional variants via the INF threathy.
INF was a major reason why the U.S and much more so Russia restricted their missile forces and had to stick with conventional airpower.
Iskander is good but too limited in range due to INF and too expensive in its design to compete with lower end airpower.
Chinese DF-16, -17, -21, -26 some with MaRV are now entering service in increased numbers to tackle enemy high value assets. In their design they are still expensive due to their nuclear heritage but China has sufficient budget to acquire them.
With strong airpower and due to the development history of both counties Russia and China only employ their missile forces, where it is too risky to employ their airpower.
With the end of INF we will unfortunately see a world wide increase of missile systems that are much harder to counter than the current conventional airpower concept from the last century.

4. China and much more so Russia, have both managed to cope with U.S Tomahawk/CM threat due to their heavy investment into their IADS.
Russian investment in its S-400 force is higher than into its conventional airpower.
Both countries has reached a ground based air defense level at which their vulnerable conventional airpower would not be taken out by U.S CM assets.
Iran is not there yet despite its recent air defense achievements.

5. Both China and Russia are more and more investing towards offensive and defensive missile system instead of their conventional airpower. Here Russia is much more progressive than China and thats one reason why the Su-57 is not acquired immediately in high numbers.



With all those parameters taken into consideration, the decisions made by Russia and China become much clearer and Irans situation in this context too.

Conventional airpower is good for all those other countries, buy it from the U.S and Europe, spend your money on it and let Iran do what makes sense for it.

 

[GWXP]

don't take debates personally my friend... that's the whole point of a forum.

what you say in theory is not completely wrong. Airpower is massive. but what you fail to take into account is Iran's unique geopolitical situation. and the fact that war tactics actually evolve over time (something Iran puts enormous research and thought into)

for thousands of years. cavalry was the king of the battlefield. firearms and cannons couldn't even change this equation. It was like this all the way until ww1 dramatically changed this with the machine gun. over night cavalry was dead as you could easily slaughter a cavalry charge with a few machine gunners.

the armies went into dug in trenches. it was thought then manuevure warfare was dead. as modern weapons made it easy to mass slaughter men ,and it was considered foolish to send in men charging against machine guns.

The French expert commanders noted this and famously built the Maginot line. a supposed invincible defensive line that no german army could pass.. Then the germans developed their combined arms manuevure warfare that laughed at the face of French theory and showed off the importance of air power.

Israel was also convinced of this 100% right up to 2006. When a month of non stop bombing with everything their military had (including emergency restock flights by the US). they could not defeat a few hundred dug in Hezbollah men using Iranian style tactics of dug in/ yet mobile atgm heavy infantry using hit and run tactics.

This force can weather and survive airstrikes, shred invading enemy forces, and have a survivable missle force to counter attack the enemy territory non-stop to put massive pressure on them to quickly end the war.

No western force has yet to offer a response to this.

Iran has prepared this sort of scenario x 1000 against a potential US style invasion named the "mosaic doctrine"

However this doesn't change the widely accepted fact of crucial nature of airpower.

There are myriads of examples of recent wars in which air power was crucial...

Beyond the examples I posted in this thread....We can look at example of NATO bombing campaign against Libya in 2011....

Qaddafi was on the offensive and was about to crush Benghazi, however NATO started a bombing campaign which not only stalled Qaddafi's offense, but resulted in destruction of Qaddafi's military and his ultimate death.......It is hard to imagine such an outcome if not for NATO bombing...even harder to imagine such an outcome if ballistic missiles were employed instead.

There is analysis by professionals in think tank Stratfor who modelled Iran-Saudi war (with Iranian forces crossing Kuwait) and despite superiority of Iranian ground forces, came to conclusion that Saudi air force of some 225 fighters, that practiced high-rates of sorties in Yemen, will pound invading Iranian army and stall the entire invasion....And Iran according to Stratfor "doesn't have airforce worthy of the name"

Only because during Iran-Iraq war Iranian airforce was INEFFECTIVE fighting force suffering from numerious shortcomings and INCAPABLE of high rates of sorties (which is crucial) doesn't change the widely accepted fact of crucial nature of airpower...and denying this is ridiculous.