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

[wali87]

On what basis are you claiming Iran's submarines fall awfully short of international standards? Iran's Fateh submarine for example, despite being 600 ton is extremely well equipped and armed. As for air defence, Iran is one of the few nations that produces long range air defences. Fighter jets is the only area Iran has yet to fully master, everything else, from Missiles, UAVs, air defence and submarines, Iran is doing extremely well.

My dear friend, first of all I’m only drawing an honest comparison as per my knowledge so please don’t take it as an offence.

Ofcourse Iran is manufacturing everything on its own but it’s lagging behind in high end tech. Take airforce for example, you need effective and proven long range bvrs along with AESA radars as modern air battles are mostly In the bvr spectrum. Not to mention capable electronic warfare suites etc.

In terms of navy, the submarines Iran manufactures are for shallow waters. These days you need deep water submarines with AIP or nuclear. Similarly the surface vessels too need long range sams etc.
These are just a few examples.

Modern wars are fought through network centric warfare systems. Ahh I just don’t know how to explain it to you, too much details. So I mean to say that Iran is lagging behind in defence tech but since it’s developing is own weapon, it ll get there eventually. It will take a lot of time though considering the sanctions and everything.

Iran however, is a master of assymetric warfare, but that Ofcourse has its limits.

 

[Philosopher]

My dear friend, first of all I’m only drawing an honest comparison as per my knowledge so please don’t take it as an offence.

Ofcourse Iran is manufacturing everything on its own but it’s lagging behind in high end tech. Take airforce for example, you need effective and proven long range bvrs along with AESA radars as modern air battles are mostly In the bvr spectrum. Not to mention capable electronic warfare suites etc.

In terms of navy, the submarines Iran manufactures are for shallow waters. These days you need deep water submarines with AIP or nuclear. Similarly the surface vessels too need long range sams etc.
These are just a few examples.

Modern wars are fought through network centric warfare systems. Ahh I just don’t know how to explain it to you, too much details.

Iran however, is a master of assymetric warfare, but that Ofcourse has its limits.

My friend, I was not offended, I just wanted to get a feel for what gave you that notion. When it comes to airforce, I agree with you completely. Iran still has much to catch up on. Submarines are a different issue. Iran has developed those submarine for shallow water because that is what its requirements were. What you need to consider is despite the relatively small displacement, those submarines are very modern. The current version of Fateh do not have AIP, but the next version will. As for nuclear propulsion, Iran recently stated to be working on that, but as I said in this forum in the past, those are not really useful unless you're going for a large submarine being used for 2nd nuclear strike capability. Furthermore, do not forget Iran is now developing the 3000 ton Besat with AIP, brushless DC motor, VLS etc. Don't just focus on the size of the submarine, but the modernity of their systems. As for surface vessel, many good projects are in the works, AESA radars already made and long range air defence is ready.

I think perhaps you're just unaware of these large number of large projects Iran is developing. Go into the Navy thread and read through the last dozen or so pages. Almost everything you're hoping to see is already being developed. In the next 10 years, they will all be in service.

 

[GWXP]

I might be wasting my time over here (I have hardly been active the past few years), but at least I know what I am talking about.

If you are so "smart" and "educated", and you lecture us about "logic" and "qualitative analysis", and what we are saying is "amateurish gibberish" (despite what we say about airpower is actually a military theory accepted all over the world.....) Then you (who "completed minor intelligence study") are free to challenge high end professionals at Stratfor....Because what I say comes from there..(and not from some "mental war games out of delusion" how you said)....

I doubt that you will find reasonable arguments and stand a chance against Stratfor's professionals despite your "minor Intelligence Study"

I think the only thing you will be able to do is to talk about "wannabe strategists" LOL.

 

[zartosht]

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.
.

LOL Gaddafi? by the time the NATO campaign started. yes gadaffi's forces had the momentum and were making gains.

but consider for a fact that pre-war Libya's military was an absolute JOKE. gaddafi feared a coup and deliberately kept it weak.. perhaps with the exception of a few well paid units under his sons control.

most of the Libya government had defected or fled like the rats they were. preferring to continue living in luxury then to go down with gadaffis ship. gaddafi had an embargoed government with all their funds frozen.

he was essentially a warlord with a tribalistic militia at that point. and even then it took full NATO support, major CIA on ground assistance and 6 months of non-stop NATO bombing to defeat warlord gaddaffi who had 0 air defence to challenge any NATO aircraft.

infact missiles might have been gadaffis only chance for survival at that point. If he had a few hundred pinpoint accurate missiles aimed at Paris. I promise you that Zionist rat Sarkozy would have changed his calculations and not bombed and killed a foreign head of state for 6 months straight.

if I were going to try and highlight airpowers use. I wouldn't use that pathetic example of a bunch of high tech NATO countries taking 6 months of air campaign with a massive ground push to bully and kill an almost defenseless warlord.

 

[GWXP]

LOL Gaddafi? by the time the NATO campaign started. yes gadaffi's forces had the momentum and were making gains.

but consider for a fact that pre-war Libya's military was an absolute JOKE. gaddafi feared a coup and deliberately kept it weak.. perhaps with the exception of a few well paid units under his sons control.

most of the Libya government had defected or fled like the rats they were. preferring to continue living in luxury then to go down with gadaffis ship. gaddafi had an embargoed government with all their funds frozen.

he was essentially a warlord with a tribalistic militia at that point. and even then it took full NATO support, major CIA on ground assistance and 6 months of non-stop NATO bombing to defeat warlord gaddaffi who had 0 air defence to challenge any NATO aircraft.

infact missiles might have been gadaffis only chance for survival at that point. If he had a few hundred pinpoint accurate missiles aimed at Paris. I promise you that Zionist rat Sarkozy would have changed his calculations and not bombed and killed a foreign head of state for 6 months straight.

if I were going to try and highlight airpowers use. I wouldn't use that pathetic example of a bunch of high tech NATO countries taking 6 months of air campaign with a massive ground push to bully and kill an almost defenseless warlord.

First regarding Lybia---limited number of airpower was used and Qaddafi had 40.000 army and 600 of his tanks were destroyed from the air together with 400 rocket launchers

Anyway

So you also deny air power importance.....Many people here post videos of Uzi Rubin...

Maybe someone answer me a question of why Uzi Rubin's country instead of arming itself to teeth with ballistic missiles instead buy 100 expensive and vulnerable F-35?

Total package of F-35s for Israel can cost nearly 20bln$ with weapons and spare parts....isn't it better to buy some 10.000 short range ballistic missiles or 5000 medium range ballisitc missiles....and yet they buy fighters???

 

[QWECXZ]

So you also deny air power importance.....Many people here post videos of Uzi Rubin...

Maybe someone answer me a question of why UZi Rubin's country instead of arming inself to teeth with ballistic missiles instead buy 100 expensive and vulnerable F-35?

Total package of F-35s for Israel can cost nearly 20bln$ with weapons and spare parts....isn't it better to buy some 10.000 short range ballistic missiles or 5000 medium range ballisitc missiles....and yet they buy fighters???

I didn't intend to answer you, but the US gives billions of dollars of military aid to Israel annually. For example, just in 2019, US gave $3.8 billion dollars of military aid to Israel for free. And Israel is still milking Germany for the holocaust. Nobody is giving Iran billions of dollars for free.

 

[GWXP]

I didn't intend to answer you, but the US gives billions of dollars of military aid to Israel annually. For example, just in 2019, US gave $3.8 billion dollars of military aid to Israel for free. And Israel is still milking Germany for the holocaust.

Still this is not the reason to sacrifice national security and buy F--35 instead of Jericho missiles

Not even talking about the fact that out of 3.8bln$----substantial amount of money can be used by Israel at will

Also, US Congress is under heavy influence of the Jewish Lobby, so Israel can influence Congress decisions regarding funds allocation

 

[QWECXZ]

Still this is not the reason to sacrifice national security and buy F--35 instead of Jericho missiles

Not even talking about the fact that out of 3.8bln$----substantial amount of money can be used by Israel at will

You do realize that money is not necessarily paid in cash. Right? When the US says they have given Israel almost 4 billion dollars, they are counting all the weapons they gave them for free.

And who are Israel's neighbors? Lebanon. Syria. Lebanon has no air defense. They have no jet fighters I know of. Syria? Doesn't dare to fire a bullet at Israel, particularly when they're in a civil war. How do you compare Israel's neighbors with Iran's neighbors? lol

And you are comparing F35 and F22 to Su-30? :/

 

[GWXP]

You do realize that money is not necessarily paid in cash. Right? When the US says they have given Israel almost 4 billion dollars, they are counting all the weapons they gave them for free.

And who are Israel's neighbors? Lebanon. Syria. Lebanon has no air defense. They have no jet fighters I know of. Syria? Doesn't dare to fire a bullet at Israel, particularly when they're in a civil war. How do you compare Israel's neighbors with Iran's neighbors? lol

I will open you the secret of why Israel preffers F-35 to Jericho.

Because in order to win a war, you must defeat enemy's center of gravity----its large ground force...and you can't do that with missiles......As it was said earlier by another member---who will target enemy convoys/supplies/tank formations/troops concentrations etc.----only air force can do that, and not missiles

 

[QWECXZ]

I will open you the secret of why Israel preffers F-35 to Jericho.

Because in order to win a war, you must defeat enemy's center of gravity----its large ground force...and you can't do that with missiles......As it was said earlier by another member---who will target enemy convoys/supplies/tank formations/enemy concentrations etc.----only air force can do that, and not missiles

Seriously. I'm not interested in your "secrets". You asked a question, I just wanted you to know one of the answers.

IDF's large and heavily-upgraded air force couldn't defeat "the enemy's center of gravity" during the 2006 Lebanon war. They have fought Lebanon's Hezbollah 3 times without defeating them. And Lebanon is so small that can't be seen on the map. It seems that Hezbollah's rockets and missiles have given them deterrence against a much stronger neighbor.

 

[GWXP]

Seriously. I'm not interested in your "secrets". You asked a question, I just wanted you to know one of the answers.

IDF's large and heavily-upgraded air force couldn't defeat "the enemy's center of gravity" during the 2006 Lebanon war. They have fought Lebanon's Hezbollah 3 times without defeating them. And Lebanon is so small that can't be seen on the map. It seems that Hezbollah's rockets and missiles have given them deterrence against a much stronger neighbor.

2006 war is an example of defensive war in mountaineous terrain...besides airpower and artillery, Israel should have created a concentration of ground troops with 5 to 1 superiority over Hezbollah...this wasn't done...Also Israel was sensitive for losses and decided not to move forward

You are also free to explain how your ballistic missiles could have defeated an adversary like Hezbollah???

 

[QWECXZ]

2006 war is an example of defensive war in mountaineous terrain...besides airpower and artillery, Israel should have created a concentration of ground troops with 5 to 1 superiority over Hezbollah...this wasn't done...Also Israel was sensitive for losses and decided not to move forward

You are also free to explain how your ballistic missiles could have defeated an adversary like Hezbollah???

Here we go again...

But I'm happy that you're improving. At least now you acknowledged that other facts on the ground matter too. I'm not interested in endless discussions. So, see you later.

 

[Beny Karachun]

2006 war is an example of defensive war in mountaineous terrain...besides airpower and artillery, Israel should have created a concentration of ground troops with 5 to 1 superiority over Hezbollah...this wasn't done...Also Israel was sensitive for losses and decided not to move forward

You are also free to explain how your ballistic missiles could have defeated an adversary like Hezbollah???

Israeli leadership tied the army's hands, every commander in the army knows that.

We still won as far as numbers speak.

 

[GWXP]

Here we go again...

But I'm happy that you're improving. At least now you acknowledged that other facts on the ground matter too. I'm not interested in endless discussions. So, see you later.

I,m not interested either.....I,m not the one who generalize between type of war with Hamas and type war with Egypt

( like you do bringing guerilla war in afghanistan as evidence of little utility of airpower)

Uzi Rubin,s country example of buying F-35 instead of listening to your advice and starting even a modest arsenal of missiles is the best evidence that your bizzare theory has place only in your head and not in the armed forces across the world

Other example is Russia with 400 Iskander missiles (many in Kaliningrad close to EU) and nearly 1000 aircrafts

Israeli leadership tied the army's hands, every commander in the army knows that.

We still won as far as numbers speak.

Why you buy 100 F-35 instead of 5000 missiles?

 

[TruthHurtz]

Israeli leadership tied the army's hands, every commander in the army knows that.

We still won as far as numbers speak.

Imagine believing that casualties determines who wins and loses a war.