look what Russia just sold Iran....

[Peter Cairns]

Terence,

The TOR is actually a variant of the SA-15, which has been about and used for about a decade, as far as I know because of the arms embargo Iraq didn't have any and it's not in Syria so I don't know if it's been used in actual combat.

However given that the ones that Iran are buying are the options that Greece didn't take up from it's order, I am pretty sure it works.

True Greece didn't take up the options on Just under 30, but it did buy 25 or so in acompetiton that included a range of western systems, so I'd hardly dismiss it.

Russian standards are generally poor, but now that they have to export or die the days of producing junk for a captive home market seem to be over.

The package they have put together for the MIG-35 for India, seems to show that they are now being driven by customer need.

Peter.

[RCHRD]

If I recall, the Serbians were said to have a state of the art air defense, just before it was flattened.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Yes but the silly antenna the HARM is going for happens to be you, if your the TOR.

TOR's radar would go active just some seconds before launching the missiles. potential HARMs would go after other antennas and decoys.

in general HARM isn't used to destroy radar or SAM systems, it is used to prevent the enemy from utilizing his radar systems to the fullest. you need other weapons systems to destroy the radars & SAMs. TOR is made to stop these weapons systems that are used for such tasks.

anyway, Israel can't launch the kind of large multi-wave air attack against Iranese sites that would be required for any kind of meaningful use of HARMs.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by RCHRD:

If I recall, the Serbians were said to have a state of the art air defense, just before it was flattened.

there were rumours that they would have gotten some state of the art equipment from ex-USSR states, but it was just a rumour. Yugoslavia had mostly just SA-3s and SA-6s, and in general played hide & seek with NATO.

[Peter Cairns]

I think the Serbs "claimed" to have state of the art defences in the hope that we wouldn't attack them, unfortunately for them we didn't believe them.

Saddam admitted he didn't have WMD, so we wouldn't attck him, but we didn't believe him either, thing is He was telling the truth and the Serbs were lieing.

Moral. Don't try to Bluff someone who thinks your a liar.

Peter.

[The_Capt]

Anyone getting the sinking feeling that the West invaded the wrong country?

I was against the Iraq thing from the start (not as a peace-nick thing mind you, more for professional reasons) but I am seriously getting behind intervention in Iran. Now lets not go down the road of yet another political discussion of he-said, they-said..whatever. What is done is done.

Looking at wargames however, could we see CMSF 2 in Iran per-chance? Is there a big difference between Iran and Syrian eqpt? I think an Iranian CMC with a CMSF tactical fight would be very interesting.

[Peter Cairns]

Us intervention in Iran would be both politically and militarily insanity, different country different terrain different people.

You don't have to like or agree with Iran to know that a US intervention is just plain muts.

Peter.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Anyone getting the sinking feeling that the West invaded the wrong country?

I was against the Iraq thing from the start (not as a peace-nick thing mind you, more for professional reasons) but I am seriously getting behind intervention in Iran. Now lets not go down the road of yet another political discussion of he-said, they-said..whatever. What is done is done.

the planners of the 2003 invasion thought Iraq would turn into a stable pro-USA nation in three months. they propably calculated that Iran would be easier to control when Iraq would be pro-USA and US would have bases & troops in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

i don't know what they were smoking.

Looking at wargames however, could we see CMSF 2 in Iran per-chance? Is there a big difference between Iran and Syrian eqpt? I think an Iranian CMC with a CMSF tactical fight would be very interesting.

the biggest problem would be that Iran uses lots of equipment built or modified in Iran. we don't really know how well they perform.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Saddam admitted he didn't have WMD, so we wouldn't attck him, but we didn't believe him either, thing is He was telling the truth and the Serbs were lieing.

Moral. Don't try to Bluff someone who thinks your a liar.

And don't tell them the truth either!!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Anyone getting the sinking feeling that the West invaded the wrong country?

Better late than never!!

but I am seriously getting behind intervention in Iran.

Why?

Please don't give me the nuclear thing - under the NPT they're perfectly entitled to enrich uranium for civilian use, and their last offer was to let IAEA inspectors full access to everything they do and even to allow western companies into partnership in the industry so it's not like they're going to be able to hide anything.

Terrorism? Well they are probably "worse" than Iraq was, but then most of het mid-east supports one or other of the Palestinian "terrorist" organisations, it's well known and it's not like they hide it much so why now?

[Peter Cairns]

If we attacked Iran because we thought they might be trying to produce what we already know Israel has ( because we helped them build it), the arab and muslim world would explode.

If the US administration doesn't understand that, they really are living on a different planet from the rest of us.

Peter.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

The Trekkies, at least, have this:

Too bad Mr Sulu turned out not to fully appreciate what was on offer.