US Deploys F-22's to base near Iran

[zzzz]

For record even tunguska could shoot Cruise missiles.Cruise missiles are easier to be shot compared to ballistic missiles.

Actually Tunguska is designed to shoot down cruise missles. And contrary to ballistic cruise missles dont fly on predetermined ballistic trajectory.

 

[anonymus]

That is when they will want to destroy the base these F-22s have been launched from.

Commit suicide? It is a proportionate response to US agression.

Either you are a retard or a child?

Do you even know the operational difficulties of simultaneous missile launch that too at a short notice?

 

[jamesbaldwin]

Pakistan?


Stop your bs right there buddy.


First they should sort out Israel, if you want to talk proliferation records.

Ever heard :

Abdul Qadeer Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This guy pretty much gave the NKs and Iranians nuclear tech to be able to devlop nuke weapons. The world knows this and that is why Pakistan is looked down upon so much in the nuclear community that is why Pakistan can't even dream of getting the same sort of NSG waiver as India- the two nuke programs could not be more stark. Ask any security expert where the biggest threat to global seucirty in form of NBC terrorism.threat comes from and they will all (on the whole) point to Pakistan in a heartbeat. These are FACTS.



And Israel? Who have they exported nuke tech to?


Do some research. Btw I am studying Global Security and terrorism studies at St Andrews university in Scotland- I know what I am talking about. I've been to many lectures and talks on global security threats and the answer to the biggest threat is pretty unanimous- PAKISTAN.

 

[UKBengali]

Either you are a retard or a child?

Do you even know the operational difficulties of simultaneous missile launch that too at a short notice?

That may actually apply to yourself.

Please enlighten me on the "operational difficulties"?

 

[anonymus]

Actually Tunguska is designed to shoot down cruise missles. And contrary to ballistic cruise missles dont fly on predetermined ballistic trajectory.

true but cruise missiles are lot slower than ballistic missiles thus providing much more reaction time for countermeasures.

If a ballistic missile could not be intercepted,it is a finality that whatever defender do it would not be intercepted but if a cruise missile is detected,it could be intercepted by even anti air artillery.

That may actually apply to yourself.

Please enlighten me on the "operational difficulties"?

What part of operational difficulty of arming,fuelling and simultaneously launching when your defences are being pounded by aircrafts which are practically invisible on radar did you not understand?

 

[UKBengali]

[QUOTE

What part of operational difficulty of arming,fuelling and simultaneously launching when your defences are being pounded by aircrafts which are practically invisible on radar did you not understand?[/QUOTE]

Troll. Ignored.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

So the US presidential elections are nearing. November is not too far.

 

[Hack-Hook]

bad news for iran (nuclear sites).

not much of bad news as previously stated F22 can't carry any weapon that is able to scratch the paint of Iran main nuclear sites , for that USA must bring b-52 , B-1 Lancer or B-2

 

[Safriz]

Either you are a retard or a child?

Do you even know the operational difficulties of simultaneous missile launch that too at a short notice?

short notice?
iran is being threatened for how long now?
they must be ready long ago.

 

[Tija]

Damn Again petrol price will rise

Our 10% cheap petrol gone

 

[anon45]

back to the topic...
why would USA bring f22 near iran?

psy ops, put pressure on Iran, perhaps the White House thinks an Israeli attack on Iran is imminent, in that case more capability in the region never hurts. The media coverage tells me that it isn't for any planned attack though, so probably not.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Simulated test? Any evidence?

PAC-3 is a battle-proven system with 100% success rate in Iraq. And several launchers can be deployed in a region to protect it. Do the math now.

its all the battle history of PAC-3

Patriot was deployed to Iraq a second time in 2003, this time to provide air and missile defence for the forces conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate intercepting Al Samoud-2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.[12] However, no longer-range ballistic missiles were fired during that conflict. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles. Patriot missile batteries were involved in three friendly fire incidents, resulting in the downing of a Royal Air Force Tornado and the death of both crew members on 23 March 2003. On 24 March 2003, a USAF F-16CJ Fighting Falcon fired a HARM at a Patriot Missile Battery after being locked on. No one was injured but the Patriot Missile Battery was damaged.[28] On 2 April 2003, 2 PAC-3 missiles shot down a USN F/A-18 Hornet killing US Navy Lieutenant Nathan D. White of VFA-195, Carrier Air Wing Five.

by the way that article fail to mention this one

A similar development, the Al-Fahd or Ababil-100, a solid propellant version of the Al-Samoud,[5] was also used by the Iraqi army during the invasion. The Headquarters of the 2nd Brigade, US 3rd Infantry Division, were struck by a missile of this kind on April 7, while the Brigade's main force was conducting an incursion 15 km north, well inside Baghdad. Three soldiers and two foreign reporters were killed in the blast. Another 14 soldiers were injured, and 22 vehicles destroyed or seriously damaged, most of them Humvees.

and in first Persian war there is reports (based on post war evaluation of videos taken at the time in Israel) that shows in 1991 no target destroyed by the missile and all the Al-Hossein missiles destruction that Attributed to ABM actually were structural failure of those missiles .

 

[LeGenD]

its all the battle history of PAC-3

No matter what it is, PAC-3 has proven itself in combat situations and is not hype.

and in first Persian war there is reports (based on post war evaluation of videos taken at the time in Israel) that shows in 1991 no target destroyed by the missile and all the Al-Hossein missiles destruction that Attributed to ABM actually were structural failure of those missiles .

PAC 1, used in 1991, was a precursor to ABM capability.

PAC-3 is cutting-edge technology in comparison.

 

[lightoftruth]

not much of bad news as previously stated F22 can't carry any weapon that is able to scratch the paint of Iran main nuclear sites , for that USA must bring b-52 , B-1 Lancer or B-2

i hope their is no war ,but see this

F-22 Raptor In Action. Weapons Hot!! - YouTube thats a beast out their it do carry enough bombs to damage alot

 

[Thomas]

Hint: ABMs are useless against cruise missiles and it is debatable how effective they would be against dozens of different types of ballistic missiles that Iran can fire simultaneously at the F-22 base.

Cruise missiles are very vulnerable to PAC 3, ESSM, SM6.

Lockheed Martin's PAC-3 Missile Successfully Intercepts Cruise Missile Target During Integrated Flight Test - MarketWatch


This deployment does not mean war is imminent. But there has been a quiet increase over the months of equipment prepositioning, and force deployment. War will happen eventually if Iran doesn't become completely transparent on its nuclear intentions. This means opening ALL SITES to unfettered IAEA inspections. If it's nuclear ambitions are peaceful then it has nothing to worry about. The F-22's are most likely a shot across the bow of the Iranians to get thier attention ahead of talks due to take place soon.

If the Iranians are not carefull they will make the same mistake Saddam did. He was deliberatly never completely open about his WMD and reaped the results.