OT: F-22A Raptor goes operational

[Weta43]

It's a bit of a hijack so I'll leave it at this, but given that there's already one mess over there, don't you think even contemplating starting another with a country 3 x the size is just nuts ?

[Pilotasso]

There wont be any Invasion. The US budget has been overblown past its capacity to undure it in a sustained manner. If theres is going to be another military action it will be sirurgical of nature. Who knows, Israel might do it. After all the Israelis are tho ones with the rope on its neck on this one (again). Personaly Im not too keen of the Idea. It will generalize the feeling of hostilization between midle east countries and the west.

 

Given what hapenned to the motives of invasion of Iraq its going to be excedenly difficult for the US to convince anybody else to join in another military escapade, or admit any legitimacy for any action. Wich only makes the more sense for Israel to scrach US back on this one.

 

I highly suspect Irans motives on nuclear energy, given what their politicians have been saying and given their high interest in keeping the program while puting themselves at risk of being attaked. Unless a twist to the positive side happens I think an attack is inevitable. AT this rate that place is never going to be a nicer place to live. I am realy sorry for those people. I wouldnt like to live under permanent threat either psicologicaly, theologicaly, economicaly, sociologicaly and militarily.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I agree that doing such a thing would not make much sense at this point...budget isn't as much of a limitation as some believe though. ;)

 

Let's not forget that the invasion of Iraq took place after 12 years of sanctions and smaller-scale military action. The same limited actions are likely to take place for several years against Iran...I doubt very seriously that an invasion will take place any time in the near future.

[kdittyr]

given that there's already one mess over there, don't you think even contemplating starting another with a country 3 x the size is just nuts ?

 

Yes, and that is why I don't think that the US will do it. If anyone, it would be a UN thing... hopefully. I agree that Israel will probably spearhead it as they have their "street cred" on the line. I say that because Iran's president keeps picking on them and trying to push thier buttons.

 

Anyway, while I love the hell out of military vehicles and systems I do hope that peace prevails and I can just play with those things in video games.

[diveplane]

really scarey what this president is up too and saying...

from what i have read that he has sent squadrons off fighter nearby and are on standby....

 

am fearful off china and even korea getting involved if the us and uk start to strike IRAN

nuclear plants....

 

i say get the troops out off iraq let those idiots get on with it..............

[Pilotasso]

really scarey what this president is up too and saying...

from what i have read that he has sent squadrons off fighter nearby and are on standby....

 

am fearful off china and even korea getting involved if the us and uk start to strike IRAN

nuclear plants....

 

i say get the troops out off iraq let those idiots get on with it..............

 

IMHO I think your point of view is incoherent. Iraq shouldnt be left alone right now.

What we need is some comon sense regarding he Iranian nuclear thing. Not radical hot headed thinking. Moderate your speech please. :)

[Animalmother]

Dont forget, this wouldnt be a gung-ho US thing, in a war with Iran much of the world will help. ie Israel and Europe, Australia, etc. Frogs might see some action :D

[Pilotasso]

We are not here to make a celebration party for attaking Iran dude... :/

[Weta43]

If anybody else gets involved it will be in a minimal way.

England's population are against further involvment, and totaly distrustful of America's motivation.

Europe generaly would rather solve it diplomatically.

China & Russia have both vested interests in Iran & enough sense to know that any millitary option would just be throwing a mach on an already volatile situation between the Muslim & non-Muslim countries.

You might get a few hundred, even a couple of thousand troops from Australia, and a handfull from a few countries America is giving aid to, but whatever happens it's still going to be the US being the ones who push for a military "solution" and the US putting up the bulk of the troops.

It's all so 2 faced anyway.

The work they are doing IS allowed under the treaties they signed - they aren't breaking any international laws by operating their centrifuges.

Are they trying to develop nuclear weapons - probably.

In their situation I would be.

Iraq has a chance of coming out of this mess allied to the US. The US (Bush) refers to Iran in press conferences as "our enemy" & now has bases & troops just across the border.

Israelis openly discussing millitary strikes against them & Israel has nuclear weapons - which it got with US help in defiance of the same treaties the US is now claiming justify attacking Iran. The only reason Israel isn't facing sanctions is that the US uses it's position on the security council to veto any action or resolutions.

The problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons is not that they will perform a first strike attack on the US or Israel, or even that they will provide materials to terrorists - there are plenty of universities & research plants in the US let alone the rest of the world they could get that from.

The problem for the US & Israel with Iran having nuclear weapons is that it then becomes impossible to do in the future what they've just done in Iraq.

Yes - Iran is led by a bunch of religious fanatics with absolutely no love for the west (they probably look at us just as we look at them), but there were signs of a decrease in the power of the clergy & a liberalisation of their society (from articles in the NY times anyway), right up till the invasion of Iraq anyway (just another casualty of that action). Then they voted in a wartime president just as the US did - strong, someone to "stand up to the enemy" someone who will face up & say "Bring it on!"

Hopefuly in the 5-10 years the CIA believes it will take Iran to actually make a weapon both these guys will be well retired.

[Force_Feedback]

Why should Israel have nukes? And why is the US afraid Iran will attack them? The ABM program is running fine, and Iran can't reach out further than 3000 km, to use that as an argument, that Iran is a threat for the US. (same went for Iraq, but, what happened is in the past).

I think Iran has every right to develop nuclear arms, to establish a sovereign state, and not some US-controlled state with no own agenda at all (like many South American countries). Yes, an extremist goverment might be wrong, and I certainly don't like the idea of a "madnam" at the red button, BUT, in such countries (Islamic ones), the only way to control the people is hard dictatorship, otherwise it will be a no mans land like Afghanistan was and is. The people over there need a hard ruling to opress any form of terrorism which would otherwise be widespread all over the country.

One thing is certain, if the US would attack Iran, they will lose lots of money.

 

And don't start (hijack) these kind of threads too often, they can spiral out of control in a matter of minutes.

[Nate--IRL--]

For Further reading, Google "Petroeuro".

 

Some interesting behind the scenes stuff going on.

 

Nate

[Animalmother]

The US and Germany are the main countries pushing Iran. Now they realize talks are useless and will only make more problems. There will be much more support from the european militaries, not really the citizens. (but maybe) This isn't really America's war in the first place, but since we are the most powerfull military in the west, we would probably be spearheading it with Israel. Israel cant do it on their own because Iran is out of their combat range.

[GGTharos]

Why should Israel have nukes? And why is the US afraid Iran will attack them? The ABM program is running fine, and Iran can't reach out further than 3000 km, to use that as an argument, that Iran is a threat for the US. (same went for Iraq, but, what happened is in the past).

I think Iran has every right to develop nuclear arms, to establish a sovereign state, and not some US-controlled state with no own agenda at all (like many South American countries). Yes, an extremist goverment might be wrong, and I certainly don't like the idea of a "madnam" at the red button, BUT, in such countries (Islamic ones), the only way to control the people is hard dictatorship, otherwise it will be a no mans land like Afghanistan was and is. The people over there need a hard ruling to opress any form of terrorism which would otherwise be widespread all over the country.

One thing is certain, if the US would attack Iran, they will lose lots of money.

 

And don't start (hijack) these kind of threads too often, they can spiral out of control in a matter of minutes.

 

Okay, well, at which point did you manage to not equate Taleban to 'hard dictatorship'? ... aside from the other glaring flaws in your argument :P

[Rhen]

Gentlemen - and Ladies,

 

Please, let's get this thread on track and discuss the F/A-22. Leave the political stuff at home - or in the appropriate political forum. This has been an excellent topic & I'd rather not see it locked.

[Pilotasso]

The US and Germany are the main countries pushing Iran. Now they realize talks are useless and will only make more problems. There will be much more support from the european militaries, not really the citizens. (but maybe) This isn't really America's war in the first place, but since we are the most powerfull military in the west, we would probably be spearheading it with Israel. Israel cant do it on their own because Iran is out of their combat range.

Actualy your wrong.

Your vastly underestimating how operational IAF can be.

The Isrealis have struck tunis 2400Km from base, Osirak with F-16's from 1000Km away. SInce F-15I's have nearly twice the range Of F-16's I have no difficulty in seing them going into Iran. If you consider mid air refueling over iraq, imagine how further in they can go. It is estimated that any target within 5000KM can be reached by IAF depending of wich routes taken.

[Animalmother]

Actualy your wrong.

Your vastly underestimating how operational IAF can be.

The Isrealis have struck tunis 2400Km from base, Osirak with F-16's from 1000Km away. SInce F-15I's have nearly twice the range Of F-16's I have no difficulty in seing them going into Iran. If you consider mid air refueling over iraq, imagine how further in they can go. It is estimated that any target within 5000KM can be reached by IAF depending of wich routes taken.

No doubt the IAF has the culmination of the best pilots in the world. One of them landed an F15 missing a wing :icon_supe

 

But that doesn't beat the fact that it cannot maintain a constant air war in Iran without US help. Iran is in the range of the F-15I, but they cant fly at their optimal altitude or else they will be shot down by SAMs. Of course they can do limited surgical strikes and they could refuel over Iraq, but they have no carriers to maintain an air campaign over Iran and its unsure how the Iraqi government would react to letting Israel use airbases, or might be for the US to decide. Of coures with US help it will be no problem. And as far as the actual combat, no doubt Israel would dominate.

 

 

Srry Rhen, last one :D

[Pilotasso]

Of course they can do limited surgical strikes and they could refuel over Iraq, but they have no carriers to maintain an air campaign over Iran and its unsure how the Iraqi government would react to letting Israel use airbases, or might be for the US to decide.

Srry Rhen, last one :D

 

Israel wouldnt have to worry about a sustained air war simply because the Iranians are under equiped to such a retaliation. Not that they would do any better than the Iraquis did (nothing) after Osirak attak. Right now the goverment of Iraq has little decision of its own territorry as long as the americans ocupy it. Who holds all the surveilance and air equipment are the americans.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Optimum cruise altitude really isn't much of a problem anymore, as most combat aircraft now fly at higher altitudes in high threat areas. The low-altitude air defense systems were found to be a hell of a lot more dangerous, since many of them give no launch warning. Flying in the weeds is really a tactic of the past for most combat aircraft. ;)

 

There would have to be lots of ECM, SEAD and, you're right...I think air superiority over the target area would be essential to a successful strike. If its going to be done, it'll have to be soon, because once a reactor goes active...that changes the whole equation as far as risk of wide-spread collateral damage is concerned.

[Pilotasso]

Im my view Iran is very permeable for an air incursion. They have much less aircraft than Iraq had for a much bigger country that is Iran. A quick ingress and a quick getaway will be hard to stop if surprise is achieved. Nothing that the Israelis havent donne before.

[Alfa]

The current direction of this discussion is:

 

a). of political nature

 

b). completely detached from the original subject of the thread

 

...both of which violating forum rules.

 

Please stick to the original topic or the thread will be closed.

 

- JJ.

[kdittyr]

Has anyone checked out this site?

 

http://www.f22fighter.com/movies.htm

 

it has some pretty cool stuff on there, obviously about the fa22, from movies to wallpapers and such. If you have some time check it out. be advised that the videos are REALLY small, for whatever reason. anyway, at least it has some info that I didn't know.

 

Sorry about helping in the 'jacking of the thread, I'll try to get it back on track.

[59th_LeFty]

If this Raptor goes operational, don' forget to bring the Win95 install disks with it, never know when its gonna crash ;) The best two things I love in this plane, that it has got a cost of a squad of Su-35s and is capable of carry 2 AIM-9s. Well, about the second one, if the Raptor has to use those, its far too bad situation:biggrin:

[Pilotasso]

The raptor wont have a trouble in gunning down any oponent.

[GGTharos]

If this Raptor goes operational, don' forget to bring the Win95 install disks with it, never know when its gonna crash ;) The best two things I love in this plane, that it has got a cost of a squad of Su-35s and is capable of carry 2 AIM-9s. Well, about the second one, if the Raptor has to use those, its far too bad situation:biggrin:

 

 

... You mean after it has dropepd half that squadron with its AIM-120 payload, and the rest of the 35's in the flight are still potentnially unaware of its position? :)

Or maybe you think that IR stealthing doesn't work against R-73's, because er ... I guess because they're magical? ;)

Are you saying that one F-22 would be facing a squadron of Su-35's? ... or maybe you're saying the Su-35's software is less complex?

Or that someone has a larger number of Su-35's than the USAF has F-22's? ;)

[BladeLWS]

The only reason the Raptor will probably even use its AIM-9's is if it's carrying JDAM's in its bay.

 

And Lefty it's not "if" it goes operational, it already is operational. It'll fly circles around a Su-35 and it won't even see it till the pilot is floating down in his chute. ;)