Topic: Iran announces successful test of $800m Russia-built air defence system - page 2. (Read 2049 times)

I heard that it was the Ukrainian troops who shot down the Boeing, using the Buk anti-air missile. Didn't came as a surprise, as the Kiev regime has already killed many thousands of civilians in the Donbass using indiscriminate shelling.

Any weapon can cause irreparable damage. Therefore, the placement of these defense systems can not pose a threat. But it seems to me that the Russians are exaggerating the capabilities of these systems.

I did not. Did you make it to the part of sentence where I mentioned "third world" countries? Or do you count tribal Afghanistan which did not even have airforce as a military powerhouse? Yes, northern Vietnam had used Migs and primitive sams... with suprising success given nominal superiority of western troops.

I doubt media would given attention to S-300 and S-400 air defense systems if they were ineffective or indeed that still developing such as Iran would spend so much money on foreign product that doesnt work.

The question, atleast for me, is survivability of aircraft carrier in modern warfare. Power projection aside, those boats given modern unmanned drones and high explosives seem quite fragile in open conflict.

You might have forgotten the war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq. Everywhere the American army participated in open confrontation. If you don't count Vietnam, everywhere the Americans won with very little loss.

Do you know where serial production of F-15,16,18 had started?  Its not like airplanes got more explosive proof since then.

The fact is that United States never had to oppose enemy force toe-to-toe since Wold War 2. Good for world peace but not a proof of superiority, when you are comparing your best to third world countries.

Messages here are quite telling, that Iran indeed does well investing into its air defense capabilities.

War is never possible to manage. There have been attempts to build the UN to prevent wars and solve all the problems peacefully, but we all now see that this attempt failed.

The weapon is not a toy, and in the wrong hands, arms always brings harm and trouble. So it happened with Boeing. But apparently the control of such actions may not be long.

In any case, I'm sure it was an accident. This once again emphasizes that during the war innocent people are suffering. Better to let never be wars. Then there will be no reason to find out who is to blame. Recently there was a case when in Ukraine, Russian troops shot down a civilian Boeing.

You left out one important copy/paste..

Contrary to the accounts of various USS Vincennes crew members, the shipboard Aegis Combat System aboard Vincennes recorded that the Iranian airliner was climbing at the time and its radio transmitter was "squawking" on the Mode III civilian code only, rather than on military Mode II.

Had they bothered to check their equipment then they would have seen it was a civilian craft and it was climbing, not diving in for an attack.

I'm shocked. The world is spending so much money on development, to kill, and for the mass extermination of people are not even a single person. We really soon destroy themselves.

Serial production of the s-300 was launched in 1975. There were of course some modifications, but still this complex is 41 years old! I'm pretty confident that these complexes are not very dangerous to modern aircraft. Also probably during this time we developed weapons of suppression of these systems.

Thank you for explanation and yes, this seems perfectly plausible.

On the other hand, nobody was punished for mass (if accidental killing) of hundreds of civilians and then governing US administration openly defied common courtesy by refusing to issue apology (cause you know, elections). Thats not how you build relations in civilized matter.

It is also worth noting, that military explanation ie. mistaking passenger aircraft for iranian Tomcat plainly gives away, that US supported Iraq in the war against Iran. No Iraqi airplanes were ever shotdown by US in the eighties and no sanctions were in place, despite documented use of chemical weapons in residental areas. In fact, as supply of soviet migs dwindled, Iraqi air force was replenished by F-86 Sabres.

Umm.. no, Iraq had scuds and to my knowledge no air to air missiles this advanced.

The S-300 can still take out most of the aircraft that their neighbors have. Such as Israel's F16, F15 eagles and other fighter/bombers from that generation.

It may be useless against the new US F22 Raptor since they are stealth but that is still to be determined.

According to official statements of the U.S. government airliner was mistakenly identified by the cruiser "Vincennes" as an attacking Iranian warplane. Flight 655 was flying along the profile resembling the profile of the exit to attack the F-14A "Tomcat", consisting on arms of the air force of Iran. In addition, the aircraft took off from the airport of Bandar Abbas, which served not only commercial airport, but the airfield Iranian F-14.

According to the same reports, "Vincennes" 11 times tried to contact flight 655 on the radio but not got any response, With only 3 messages were sent in the civil frequency, the "Vincennes" when it is not used when the unique code of the Iranian plane that was obtained through facial recognition purposes.

At 10:24 IRST cruiser fired a missile "SM-2MR" "earth-air" are at this moment at a distance of about 20 kilometers unidentified aerial target. The missile hit the plane, causing it destroyed at least two parts and crashed into the sea. Only after contact with the plane was identified as a command cruiser of an Iranian airliner.

This version was presented in the report of Admiral William Fogarty (eng. Willian Fogarty), who led the official investigation into the incident. The report was declassified and published only in part: part one in 1988 and another in 1993. The findings outlined in the report, met a big wave of criticism.

The main cause of the incident in the official report named the psychological state of the team, "Vincennes", which operated in a combat situation under a lot of pressure, as well as the similarity of the flight profile of the liner with the alleged attack profile Iranian fighter.

In General, the us government considers the incident as a military incident and said that the crew of the cruiser had acted in accordance with the current circumstances. Later, the commander of the cruiser was awarded the order of "Legion of honor" for successful service in the period from 1987 to 1989.

Neither Iraq nor Iran received any sort of support from the United Sates. On the other hand, the Americans shot down an Iranian passenger jet (Iran Air Flight 655) in 1988, killing around 290 civilians.

Let me repeat it then. By the time of Iraq-Iran conflict, Iran was in international isolation, while Iraq was supported by the West, even though Saddamites used chemical weapons in residental areas of Iran.

I am no judging this or that policy of leaders and I am definitely not fan of theocracy, but lets not rewrite history here. Iran was not supported by US since 1979. That is starting year of hostage affair too. Iraq invaded Iran year later initialy equipped with russian migs, but later recieving spades of US made F-86s sabers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

In any case, it seems to me that Iran would not be able to confront Iraq without the support of America. Once again convinced that the revolution is no good do not lead, but the politicians never know when to leave power and revolution is inevitable.

Iran was supported by US pre-islamic revolution (1974), when the country was governed by local Shah (Imperator). After Imams took the power, United States turned to support Saddam which was tradionally backed by Russians. In Iraq-Iran war, Iran was essentially unsupported (as its islamist leanings were alien even to Soviets) against western backed Iraqis.

Hilariously, air war was dominated by several legendary american F-14 Tomcats, supplied to Iran by US pre-revolution...

Iraqi military did not collapse in the war only thanks to generous arms and financial aid by anglo speaking countries. Those debts turned Iraq into mess though and when the fighting ceased, hungry eyes of Saddam turned to another ally of US in the region. "Free" money in form of Kuwait.

It seems to me that the West has never supported Saddam. He was supported by Russia. The West supported Iran. This was clearly seen during the war of Iran with Iraq. Saddam fought the Russian weapons, and Iran is the us.

1) Iran is not arab country or should I say it is about as arabic as United States are chinese.

2) In fact there is deep rooted conflict in middle East, where Saudia Arabia (which is actually Arab) supported by NATO fights for dominance with Iran supported by China and Russia. Now, Saudis support global jihadist network (vast majority of 9/11 attackers were from this country), Iran supports militias in countries with shia populations (Syria, Yemen, Iraq) thus shifting dominance from sunni arab bloc.

It is geopolitics, terrorism is merely tool of trade there.

3) Also, I have no idea about nuclear weapons program ongoing in Iran, might be or might be not. What I do know is that governments of countries, which DO HAVE nukes threatened Iran with them. Hillary Clinton just several months ago. Iran has become victim of western supplied chemical WMDs in the past. Back in those times, when Saddam was still friend of the west, so I wouldnt be that suprised if they were working on WMDs of their own as a countermeasure.