making a F14 operational a good engineering job
truly magnificent achievement
Impressive,its no small task to restore something as complex as the f14 back to operational condition
lol 14 years to get a plane in the air
Iran would be well-served to involve Russia to modernize this plane.
Spetsnazovets September 12, 2014 at 11:34 PMI wouldnt trust the russians as far as I could throw them,one only has to look at russias history of failing to live up to its obligations/agreements with iran,one only has to look at the ongoing s300 scam or the bushehr reactor to see that
AnonymousSeptember 12, 2014 at 7:24 PMIt didnt take 14 years to rebuild it,it was in storage for 14 years and its likely the the air force didnt feel the need to bring it back into service any sooner than it did,the actual rebuild would have only taken a year or two at most
They weren't working on it for 14 years!!
Good work! Iranian air force need every aircraft it can bring back into service. However the fact that an aircraft of this type and importance has not taken to the skies for 14 years gives a hint of the overall state of the IRIAF and puts into question its ability to procure spare parts and by extension its readiness level. It goes to show that aircraft parts may not be manfactured indigenously, otherwise there would have been no reason to keep grounded/non-functioning aircraft in storage for so many years. Aircrafts such as the one seen in the clip would have been repaired/restored serveral times over during all these years and consequently pushed into service time and again.
I agree with what you say, but bear in mind that Iran's defense strategy is not only based on its air force's capability to be state of the art but rather it relies on an integrated defense strategy in which currently the traditional role of the air force is to ensure it can keep a certain level of readiness in which regional or for that matter global adversaries don't dare to easily intrude Iranian airspace. If you look at the last 60 years, the IRIAF (and previous IAF) has successfully managed to do exactly that. Certainly in case of a war with a super power the role of the IRIAF will be a different one and there is no expectation from Iranian military strategists to see the IRIAF as an Strategic Deterrence Force, that role as been given to the IRGCs Missile Force which will with its diverse types of missiles create the necessary fear for a technically advanced enemy to not easily initiate war against Iran without thinking of its destructive consequences for both parts.
in case of a war with a super power...... Iran's role is to be pummeled. it has no chance of doing anything other than inflicting the occasional casualty and sending signals to its hirelings to bomb some civilians somewhere far away from the real fighting.
And rain down volleys after volleys of various types of ballistic and cruise missiles on dozens of US bases and interest within its reach, including the very high-value, multi-billion dollar sprawling USN 5th fleet complex and CENTCOM in the process, killing thousands of western servicemen and provokin catastrophic material damage around them (before eventually getting pummeled themselves in the end, yes, no one questions that, but that's not the point) . Such losses would constitute a bit more than your "occasional casualty" I guess. Anyway, as of 2014, such confrontation has remained a gamble that no realistic US strategist in charge has been willing to see take place for decades, including during the highly offensive and long gone, ultra-hawkish, interventionist Bush era, so quit the broken record of a small talk you've been copy pasting for too long here and there on this blog for some time already.
Anon 10:35 AMSo you're saying that the US is not capable of sending "volleys after volleys" of ballistic and cruise missiles on dozens of Iranian cities and infratructures,while US cities and infratructures will remain completely intact? The islamic regime knows full well that Iran can never win a full blown war against the US and its Western allies.To think otherwise is only deluding one's self and pandering to the world of playstation games.
So you're saying that Iran's missile forces cannot rain down everything they've got on dozen of bases critical to US interests and host to thousands of their exposed troops all around Iran in the opening hours of the conflict ? Too bad most US commentators don't seem to grasp the subtleties of your brilliant analysis and have embarked on soft, non-military approaches and a lengthy, painstaking negotiation regime instead of simply wiping Iran out and saying good bye the Call of Duty way, as you suggested. And I actually never questioned the ultimate outcome of the war for Iran in my previous post, thus in turn invite you to try and read again, it's right there. What you fail to understand here is that the issue at stake for the US has never been about safeguarding its home-front since Pearl Harbor, but rather politically and financially unsustainable high-intensity warfare with a power like Iran deemed capable of inflicting major damage to critical american interests and personnel in the event of a full scale confrontation. Who cares Iran's infrastructure and military apparatus can ultimately be destroyed if tens of thousands of troops and personnel are gone and costly defense material and infrastructure vital to its standing in the middle east is even partially devastated in the process ? If it was of no concerns as you suggest then the country would have sustained hundreds of cruise missile strikes already since 2003, Baghdad style, and so with no second thoughts from the Pentagon. Reality is your answer.Oh one more thing while I'm at it : I wouldn't quote Playstation games as a smart-ass argument against skeptics of a US strike on Iran in the future if I were you, since Battlefield 3 (a modern FPS game available on PS3 and Xbox) is so far the only place in the universe where US troops actually make it alive to and conquer Tehran, whereas In the real world and outside of your fantasies, no massive "shock & awe" strikes on Iran have ever occurred. So for now, I'll remain quite confident about my own position rather than yours. Still, thank you very much for your concern about my mental condition.
Anon 6:47 PMWho in their right mind within the regime will want to attack US forces in the region? The islamic regime will cease to exist in that event. Even if the regime attacks US bases in the region it will not cause the damage that you claim. Islamic regime will be the ultimate loser in that conflict while dragging the Iranian people down with them.Believe me this is the "real world" we are writing about here.
Anon 10:35 AM--- you;re daft if you think that Uran's missiles are going to kill thousands of US servicemen in the Gulf..... and you're even more daft if you think that they can cause damage to bases and equipment in the area that the US would have any difficulty in replacing.on the other hand, Iran can not replace every military base and every port and every military ship and half the bridges and power generating plants in Iran.
Anon 10:35 :And who in their right mind among US leaders would suddenly decide to go military after a decade of hesitation while they had so much easier, less risky opportunities before in a much more favorable geopolitical and financial context, and take the risk of triggering nationalistic sentiments from the average Iranian just like Saddam did in his time ? my point was precisely that it is in no one's interest to attack each other considering the stakes at play and the balance of power : Unacceptable degree of American losses during troubled financial times, a public opinion weary of involvement into yet another middle-eastern quagmire costing more than the sum of the Iraqi and Afghan campaign amid unprecedented military budgetary cuts, as well as an obvious catastrophic endgame for the Iranian regime on the other hand. That would be why, in the "real world" we're both talking about, despite regular fiery rhetoric from military representatives from both sides every once in a while, no US strikes on Iran or IRI missile strike on any US base has ever occurred. Plain and simple.Anon 12:30,And how difficult would it be for the USN to entirely rebuild a sprawling naval base central to its 5th fleet in vicinity of literally thousands of different Iranian types of IRBMs and SRBMs ? keep in mind that it took so many years and billions of dollars to build it in the first place.An extension plan merely consisting in creating barracks, renovation work for recreational centers and a dining hall plus a greater security perimeter started in 2010, cost 580 million dollars and is set to last until 2015, that makes 5 years while pertaining to no critical or expensive infrastructure related to defense or ship maintenance at dry dock, how "minimal and easily replaced" would it all be after being cratered by a combination of cruise missiles, and tactical missile falling by the dozens originating right from the other side of the Persian gulf and as far in-land as Tabriz, according to you ? how many more half-decades would it take ?Several public Pentagon sessions from Leon Panetta repeatedly challenge your claims belittling Iranian capabilities and minimal projected american losses. I ask you once again : if probable US losses are so minimal and Iranian deterrence power so little, then.... what has the US been waiting for to solve the Iranian "threat" once and for all through the sheer force of its firepower ? why don't they instantly turn Iranian territories into glass/parking lot as people like you dream of every night ? what the hell has been standing between such prospect and their armed forces ? certainly not Iranian retaliatory power according to you, then what : A taste for patience ? or a secret love for the Persians that they don't have for Afghans or Arabs maybe. Why burden themselves at stopping at sanctions regime and no simply level anything nuclear-related ? Don't you realize there is a missing piece in your "rationale", every time ?Yeah we were all daft when we said attacking Iraq wouldn't bring a conclusion to American problems in the middle east, same when we said that attacking Afghanistan would not only fail in its goal of weakening the Taliban but at the contrary would embolden them both internationally and locally together with a regain of popular support after a couple of years of illusory grace. All daft when we said that involvement in Vietnam would cost America tens of thousands of its troops with no favorable outcome in the end. And you sages of the free world had seen it through the right every time you called for arms and nothing else, right ?
the US can easily afford to replace a few billion dollars' worth of a military facilities, Anon 9:49.the US' annual budget for the military is $ 625 billion.
And their debt goes above a trillion. The military budget is of no relevance in this discussion. And a lion's share of that money goes to maintain thousands of military bases that the US already has overseas and has been slowly rolling back due to unprecedented cuts to their budget since ww2. Major rebuilding efforts take time and ressources on top of money, it's physical, not a point & click game. Serious loss of personnel due to a war of choice also bears a political weight that has to be reckoned within the current context , and so no matter what. And I'n not even mentionning countless of unpredicable ramifications due to major barrel price hike after even a partial and temporary closure of the straits of Hormuz, to name only that. And anyway, your logic has yet to bring enough confidence to US leaders for them to go ahead wih a strike, anon 9:27. Indeed if you don't realize that the word "easy" doesn't belong to this kind of discussions, they seem to do. And I'm good with that since nobody needs to die in such a senseless war. There is enough blood spilled in the middle-east as it is I think.
Post a Comment