Iran would use 'smart' bomb on enemies

Fairy snuff!

I hope it works as sold, but often, these things don't in the defence procurement world..,.. Last thing I want to see is CBG's being whacked and those poor sod's on board being in that situation.

no argument dont think so answer me then why the latest in american technology is beeing crushed by ieds and russian generals giving arms to iraq during the war thats a new one all i heard they gave intel show me a link please.

From what I've read Iran's weapon is compairable to the first generation Paveway system. While the weapon may be accurate, Iran lacks a survivable platform with which to deliver it.

As far as Iran's air defence system is concerned it has one slight problem, it is too dependant on radar. If it is transmitting, it is going to die. Nobody can match the US when it comes to SEAD. If I was attacking Iran, I'd start with armed Predator drones targeting anti-aircraft radar sites, followed by a cruise missile strike on Iran's airfields, power plants and C3 centers.
Some of Iran's systems do use infra-red for targeting, but their detection range is well inside the stand-off range of weapons that the US could deploy against them.

Originally posted by stumason
Fairy snuff!

I hope it works as sold, but often, these things don't in the defence procurement world..,.. Last thing I want to see is CBG's being whacked and those poor sod's on board being in that situation.

I agree.

It is hard to test as the US does not produce supersonic cruise missiles the systems were tested on "drones".

There are other counter measures that could be effective against these threats but no one knows how effective.

The USN is not being stupid. they will get everything they can out of the Gulf should they assume an attack is imminent. Really, these supersonic cruise missiles would only be effective if Iran could launch them from land (Iran, Syria) based mobile launchers. I do not think they can get a ship, sub, plane close enough to use them agains a carrier group. It would have to be from land.

Originally posted by manzoor
no argument dont think so answer me then why the latest in american technology is beeing crushed by ieds and russian generals giving arms to iraq during the war thats a new one all i heard they gave intel show me a link please.

It is not being crushed. We have, in the US, what we like to call RULES OF ENGAGEMENT...

If you wanted to see a crushing in Iraq, TODAY, we could deliver it, but we do not just slaughter for fun... got it?

The IEDs are an irritant to the US military, a bad one, so are wimps that hide amongst civilians and wear no uniforms...

We could take care of both of these issues with MOABs, Ccluster bombs, JDAMs, Tomahawks, etc... but then the world would say we are murders... so... it is not really the technology getting beaten. We have morals wether you like to believe it or not. At any moment we could LEVEL every single part of Iraq that is being "controled" by insurgetns.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Pootie]

The IEDs are an irritant to the US military, a bad one, so are wimps that hide amongst civilians and wear no uniforms...

Who do you call wimps? Those who defend their country against foreign invader? And Iran providing help to defeat the invader?

If the US would be invaded by China, Canada would help the US in arms and money to defeat the chineses that's for sure. So please, before blamming anyone for defending their country, think what would you do in the same situation.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Who do you call wimps? Those who defend their country against foreign invader? And Iran providing help to defeat the invader?

Mr. Vitchilo, a foreign invader who wants to instill "peace" and "prosperity" to the people of Iraq by removing a ruthless dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Say what you like sir, but the US is promoting, as well as establishing, a free, democratic society. Is that such a bad thing?

Iran, im amazed at how and why you defend them. The Iranian people do not like there own government. The Iranian government, does not have its peoples best interest at heart, they are ruled by religious extremist who are hell bent on starting "the end of times", also known as "Armageddon". you are defending a government that brutally oppresses its own people based upon there own "religious values".

You sir, are ignorantly sleeping with the enemy, and you like it. That, is sick, as well as sad.

If the US would be invaded by China, Canada would help the US in arms and money to defeat the chineses that's for sure. So please, before blamming anyone for defending their country, think what would you do in the same situation.

But what would be chinas cause for invasion? Its dumb logic Mr.vitchilo. The US is promoting a democracy, to free the Iraqi people, not to enslave them. You sir, seem to be under the false presumption that the US is there to "rape and pillage their women". That is just not true. Please take this time, to deny your own ignorance. Thank you.



[edit on 27-8-2007 by West Coast]

Mr. Vitchilo, a foreign invader who wants to instill "peace" and "prosperity" to the people of Iraq by removing a ruthless dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Say what you like sir, but the US is promoting, as well as establishing, a free, democratic society. Is that such a bad thing?

Yeah sure. According to the BS propaganda. Place a puppet government, giving up ressources to the invader, ect... Democracy, ahahaha you don't even have a working democracy in the US, so how can you export it?

And this ruthless dictator, YOU put it there, YOU armed it, YOU forced him to cause a ten year war with Iran, ect... sorry, I know what the US did to Iraq and still does to it, and it's freaking bad.

Iran, im amazed at how and why you defend them. The Iranian people do not like there own government. The Iranian government, does not have its peoples best interest at heart, they are ruled by religious extremist who are hell bent on starting "the end of times", also known as "Armageddon". you are defending a government that brutally oppresses its own people based upon there own "religious values".

I know all this, still, they have a point into helping Iraq kick the US butt where it doesn't have to be. In the end, it will be US soldiers who pay for this, which is very bad, and the real guys who started this war should have what they deserve, death penalty for war crimes.

But what would be chinas cause for invasion? Its dumb logic Mr.vitchilo. The US is promoting a democracy, to free the Iraqi people, not to enslave them. You seem to be under the false presumption that the US is there to "rape and pillage their women". That is just not true. Please take this time, to deny your own ignorance. Thank you.

Maybe that's why the TV says to you, but it's not the case. The US is there to destroy a nation, to transform it to a third world nation, just like the US will be in a decade if the current path continue.

I know you have good intentions and that you think that your leaders want to help other countries, that is false. There's no difference between the current US ``democracy`` and Iranian ``democracy-dictatorship``. In the US, it's just a matter of time before the government go hell bent on killing those who disagree. You are new, you should look into it. Look into 9/11, Bohemian Groove, Skulls and Bones, CFR, Bilderberg, PNAC, modern eugenics.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yeah sure. According to the BS propaganda. Place a puppet government, giving up ressources to the invader, ect... Democracy, ahahaha you don't even have a working democracy in the US, so how can you export it?

Well ask yourself this Mr. vitchilo, what is a democracy? It is what we make of it. I assure you, the US is as free as they come. However, not everyone will be pleased, some will find ways to nitpick this and that.

Its not a perfect system, but nothing is.

And this ruthless dictator, YOU put it there, YOU armed it, YOU forced him to cause a ten year war with Iran, ect... sorry, I know what the US did to Iraq and still does to it, and it's freaking bad.

Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

Just for instance, The Iraqi air force, it does/did not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force is made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor. The foxbat was just recently, a few years ago, discovered by the US. The remainder of the Iraqi air force comes from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21, while the french provided the Mirage F-1.

honestly, I can go on and on with this. Just answer me this. What one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal (not counting now obviously) was made in the United states?

I know all this, still, they have a point into helping Iraq kick the US butt where it doesn't have to be. In the end, it will be US soldiers who pay for this, which is very bad, and the real guys who started this war should have what they deserve, death penalty for war crimes.

First, the US is not getting its 'butt kicked'. Second, dont think for a second Iran wouldnt be all over Iraq for there own purposes, if the US wasnt there. And last, what war crimes are you talking about here Mr. vitchilo?

Maybe that's why the TV says to you, but it's not the case. The US is there to destroy a nation, to transform it to a third world nation, just like the US will be in a decade if the current path continue.

I laughed at this. Iraq was already a third world nation. Saddam was acting as a lead weight who needed to be cut away. as for the US becoming a third world, Im not going to even dignify that with a proper response. Just this, ludacris!

The thing that we did, that I really wished we wouldnt have done, was enforce sanctions on the people of Iraq. Many died from starvation as a result of such sanctions. Shame on us. And shame on the international community for helping to enforce such sanctions.

I know you have good intentions and that you think that your leaders want to help other countries, that is false. There's no difference between the current US ``democracy`` and Iranian ``democracy-dictatorship``. In the US, it's just a matter of time before the government go hell bent on killing those who disagree. You are new, you should look into it. Look into 9/11, Bohemian Groove, Skulls and Bones, CFR, Bilderberg, PNAC, modern eugenics.

Well thank you for the warm welcome Mr. vitchilo. I like to think I dont lean that far on the conspiracy spectrum . Thats a bit to extreme for my taste. However, if any of it actually is true, I will gladly eat crow for all my claims that turned out to be false.

Cheers.

Originally posted by West Coast
Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

Okey dokey....

M47 Patton/M60
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
155 mm M109 howitzer
155 mm M114 howitzer
Hughes 300C
Hughes 500D
Hughes 530F

Now, I realise that it's not an extensive list, now formidable weaponry, but you were being so monumentally arrogant, I thought I'd mention it all.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by West Coast
Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

Okey dokey....

M47 Patton/M60
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
155 mm M109 howitzer
155 mm M114 howitzer
Hughes 300C
Hughes 500D
Hughes 530F

Now, I realise that it's not an extensive list, now formidable weaponry, but you were being so monumentally arrogant, I thought I'd mention it all.

Ahh yes, I wasnt clear enough yet again, ive only gotten 7 hours of sleep for the past 3 days. I'll however, admit and own up to being a bit to presumptuous with some statements. So i stand corrected. And yes, those weapons are not of any great significance, they wont make or break a battle, now will they.

Who armed Iraq? As in, any substantial way? Mr.Vitchilo said, that the US was the ones who armed Iraq, etc. I happen to have the opinion that that just isnt true.

Originally posted by West Coast
Ahh yes, I wasnt clear enough yet again, ive only gotten 7 hours of sleep for the past 3 days. I'll however, admit and own up to being a bit to presumptuous with some statements. So i stand corrected. And yes, those weapons are not of any great significance, they wont make or break a battle, now will they.

They certainly did help in the initial phases of the Iran-Iraq War. The problem came for Iraq in the form of Human wave attacks by Iran. No matter how many shells they fired, or how professional the Army was back then, they just couldn't stop them coming.

Originally posted by West Coast
Who armed Iraq? As in, any substantial way? Mr.Vitchilo said, that the US was the ones who armed Iraq, etc. I happen to have the opinion that that just isnt true.

Vitchillo is probably alluring to the "duel use" technologies that Iraq got off the west. Including, but not limited too, computers and parts for their Rocket programme and "agricultural" chemicals, which by chance could also be used for Chemical and Biological weapons.

It's convenient the west can pretend they didn't intend the stuff to be used as it was, but come on, your selling all this gadgetry and what not to a country that is led by a dictator who just "happens" to be fighting your enemy.

You don't seriously expect that our Government's are that naive, do you?

Originally posted by stumason
They certainly did help in the initial phases of the Iran-Iraq War. The problem came for Iraq in the form of Human wave attacks by Iran. No matter how many shells they fired, or how professional the Army was back then, they just couldn't stop them coming.

While ofcourse Mr. stumason. And the US did help Iraq out by providing valuable intel via satellite information on just when and where the Iranians were going to attack.

Vitchillo is probably alluring to the "duel use" technologies that Iraq got off the west. Including, but not limited too, computers and parts for their Rocket programme and "agricultural" chemicals, which by chance could also be used for Chemical and Biological weapons.

This is also true. However, on a site like this, it seems alot of people here like to place alot of blame on the US. Mr.vitchilo came off as if he was 'blaming' america for 'doing' it all, America created the problem, and so on...

It's convenient the west can pretend they didn't intend the stuff to be used as it was, but come on, your selling all this gadgetry and what not to a country that is led by a dictator who just "happens" to be fighting your enemy.
You don't seriously expect that our Government's are that naive, do you?

Of course not.

Originally posted by stumason


Okey dokey....

M47 Patton/M60
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
155 mm M109 howitzer
155 mm M114 howitzer
Hughes 300C
Hughes 500D
Hughes 530F

Sounds more like Iran than Iraq. I believe the Iraqis took them during the Iran-Iraq war.

Because I know for sure that the U.S. was arming Iran at the time before the fall of Shah, and Saddam was getting his weapons from the Soviets and French.

I think you'll find that the Helicopters at least where directly supplied by the USA to Iraq. They are the only direct transfer of military hardware that occurred between the US and Iraq during the War.

I never said those weapons were all acquired during the 80's. As evidenced by the age of some of the designs, I suspect many were acquired much further back in history.

Originally posted by stumason
I think you'll find that the Helicopters at least where directly supplied by the USA to Iraq. They are the only direct transfer of military hardware that occurred between the US and Iraq during the War.

I never said those weapons were all acquired during the 80's. As evidenced by the age of some of the designs, I suspect many were acquired much further back in history.

Well you going to have prove that those helos were actually military hardware because they are used for civilian purposes to. Same thing for tanks and howizters you mentioned that supposedly U.S. supplied to Iraq.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Well you going to have prove that those helos were actually military hardware because they are used for civilian purposes to. Same thing for tanks and howizters you mentioned that supposedly U.S. supplied to Iraq.

Why the squirming, deltaboy? Having difficulty accepting that the US (and other Western powers) supplied Iraq? Seeing as it is a matter of public record, I don't understand why the resistance?

The MD 500D IS a military Helicopter. There is no equivocation there.



Howitzer's and Tanks ARE military hardware.

Now, I might qualify my statement and say I responding to West Coast's claim that no weapons PRODUCED in America were being used by Iraq. This, I showed, was not true. Not once did I claim that all the weapons were directly SOLD by America to Iraq.

There is this, however:

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

So whilst not keen to sell weapons directly, they certainly encouraged it covertly.

Going to accept the truth, or will you squirm some more?

[edit on 28/8/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason


Why the squirming, deltaboy? Having difficulty accepting that the US (and other Western powers) supplied Iraq? Seeing as it is a matter of public record, I don't understand why the resistance?

The MD 500D IS a military Helicopter. There is no equivocation there.

I'm not even squirming... the Hughes 500 is used for by both military and civilian, unless you forgot? Not to mention the Hughes 300 you mentioned is also civilian.

Howitzer's and Tanks ARE military hardware.

Of course they are military hardware, but where is the proof the U.S. supplied the M109 self propelled tanks? The M113 apcs? The m47 tanks?

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

So whilst not keen to sell weapons directly, they certainly encouraged it covertly.

Going to accept the truth, or will you squirm some more?

Let me read this link of yours because I can hardly believe this information when you stated that U.S. supplied American weapons when this link contradicts that by saying the U.S. supplied non-U.S. weaponry. I'm trying to help you here on this statement.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by deltaboy]

Question: Why even waste an F4 (et al) airplane strapped to several guided bombs when you can incorporate the bomb into the body of a UCAV drone?

I seem to remember a post by Chinawhite a while ago on the Chinese militaries adaptations of GBUs to be equipped with long-range 'glide-kits'...

It would make more sense for Iran's military to incorporate their 2000lb GBUs, off-the-shelf UCAV technology with a JATO launch unit to swarm-attack with far greater success of area-devastation (much like an updated guided 'Nebelwerfer' massed-bombardment) than by dropping 2-3 munitions by expensive-to-replace airplane

Originally posted by deltaboy
I'm not even squirming... the Hughes 500 is used for by both military and civilian, unless you forgot? Not to mention the Hughes 300 you mentioned is also civilian.

The Hugehs DEFENDER 500 MD, the one's Iraq had, are military helicopters.

The others are commercial helicopters, but can easily be used, and indeed were used, for military purposes.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Howitzer's and Tanks ARE military hardware.

Of course they are military hardware, but where is the proof the U.S. supplied the M109 self propelled tanks? The M113 apcs? The m47 tanks?

Please point out where I said the US supplied them? West Coast said about US produced weaponry. Unless your telling me other people manufactured these weapons as well? I wouldn't discount it, as it could have been done under license, but I would be surprised.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Let me read this link of yours because I can hardly believe this information when you stated that U.S. supplied American weapons when this link contradicts that by saying the U.S. supplied non-U.S. weaponry. I'm trying to help you here on this statement.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by deltaboy]

Tis from Wikipedia : en.wikipedia.org...

You may not like Wiki, but it comes with a selection of sources on the bottom of the page you can read through.

Again, I didn't actually say the US supplied them with tanks and artillery (although the sales of Helicopters is a matter of public knowledge), just said that Iraq used US PRODUCED weapons.