Russia to sell Iran 29 modern SAM's.

[Balta1701]

So this morning, there was This moderately interesting column in my LA Times by Rosa Brooks, one of their columnists that you probably wouldn't call a major hawk. Her prediction? There will be a war with Iran by September.

 

It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran...

 

Russian leaders continue to mouth the usual diplomatic platitudes about democracy and global cooperation, but Russia is actually playing a complex double game. On Tuesday, Russia launched a spy satellite for Israel, which the Israelis can use to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. On the same day, Russian leaders confirmed their opposition to any U.N. Security Council effort to impose sanctions against Iran, and their intention to go through with the lucrative sale of 29 Tor M1 air defense missile systems to Iran.

 

"There are no circumstances which would get in the way of us carrying out our commitments in the field of military cooperation with Iran," declared Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of Russia's National Security Council.

 

The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems are deployed, Iran's air defenses will become far more sophisticated, and Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor missile deployment is set to be completed.

So, I did a bit of reading into these Tor missiles, and They do actually appear to be quite formidable. They can operate in radar-jamming environments, so traditional anti-radar missiles won't necessarily work well against them. They have a very high kill rate, hitting somewhere between 92 to 95% of airplane targets. They also have the ability to hit cruise missiles, hitting between 60 and 90% of those. It can engage multiple targets simultaneously. Basically we're talking about a missile that is approaching the quality of the current Patriot system.

 

As far as I can tell, once Iran gets these operational, there will be exactly 2 weapons systems in the world (that we know about) which are capable of actually doing damage to the Iranian nuclear program without extreme casualties; the F117 and B2 stealth bombers, which these missiles still cannot detect. So therefore, if Israel genuinely were planning a strike, this author is correct, as of September of this year, the cost of such a strike to the IDF would go up massively.

 

Unless Iran installed more of these missiles, they wouldn't have enough to totally defeat the IDF with just those devices, but it is now officially safe to say that beyond Iran's fortifications on the ground, Iran is prepared to make any attempt to shut down their nuclear programs into a major conflict in the air over their country, involving heavy casualties on both sides.

[NorthSideSox72]

So this morning, there was This moderately interesting column in my LA Times by Rosa Brooks, one of their columnists that you probably wouldn't call a major hawk.  Her prediction?  There will be a war with Iran by September.

 

So, I did a bit of reading into these Tor missiles, and They do actually appear to be quite formidable.  They can operate in radar-jamming environments, so traditional anti-radar missiles won't necessarily work well against them.  They have a very high kill rate, hitting somewhere between 92 to 95% of airplane targets.  They also have the ability to hit cruise missiles, hitting between 60 and 90% of those.  It can engage multiple targets simultaneously.  Basically we're talking about a missile that is approaching the quality of the current Patriot system.

 

As far as I can tell, once Iran gets these operational, there will be exactly 2 weapons systems in the world (that we know about) which are capable of actually doing damage to the Iranian nuclear program without extreme casualties; the F117 and B2 stealth bombers, which these missiles still cannot detect.  So therefore, if Israel genuinely were planning a strike, this author is correct, as of September of this year, the cost of such a strike to the IDF would go up massively. 

 

Unless Iran installed more of these missiles, they wouldn't have enough to totally defeat the IDF with just those devices, but it is now officially safe to say that beyond Iran's fortifications on the ground, Iran is prepared to make any attempt to shut down their nuclear programs into a major conflict in the air over their country, involving heavy casualties on both sides.

As far as Russia goes, I have tended to defend many of their regional actions, including some of the cooperation with Iran (or example, the bid to host their nuclear facilities for them). It was in their best interests. But this is just downright stupid. This makes Russia look like their zeal for economic power far outweighs any desire to be more than a weapons warehouse for the world.

[Rex Kickass]

Quite the contrary. This is in fact IN Russia's best interests on a security and influence level.

[kapkomet]

Quite the contrary. This is in fact IN Russia's best interests on a security and influence level.

Yes, it is... Russia is still a major player in world affairs.

 

In fact, Russia, I predict, will be the final catalyst involved in starting the next 'big' war - and something like this might be enough to set it off.

[NorthSideSox72]

Quite the contrary. This is in fact IN Russia's best interests on a security and influence level.

I think it is only in their very short term best interests, in this case. Long term it was one deal too far.

 

They are absolutely still a big player.

[Rex Kickass]

I disagree. This will not set off a war and in fact, may go a long way to resetting stability of some sort in the region. Russia will not support Iran if it attacks Israel. The political and economic cost will be too great. However, by reestablishing a sphere of influence in the middle east - in a position contrary to the United States' position, it can help find regimes that might otherwise use violence to make their statement have a political valve in which to do it. This seems more along the lines of the first steps of a MAD type agenda that Russia has in mind.

 

It's actually quite smart - and something that the US might have also accomplished down the road if they ever thought to start talking to Iran.

[kapkomet]

I disagree. This will not set off a war and in fact, may go a long way to resetting stability of some sort in the region. Russia will not support Iran if it attacks Israel. The political and economic cost will be too great. However, by reestablishing a sphere of influence in the middle east - in a position contrary to the United States' position, it can help find regimes that might otherwise use violence to make their statement have a political valve in which to do it. This seems more along the lines of the first steps of a MAD type agenda that Russia has in mind.

 

It's actually quite smart - and something that the US might have also accomplished down the road if they ever thought to start talking to Iran.

I totally disagree with your premise that Russia would support Israel in that scenario. Therefore, on balance, the rest of your post I have issues with.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, though.

[Flash Tizzle]

This seems more along the lines of the first steps of a MAD type agenda that Russia has in mind.

 

It's actually quite smart - and something that the US might have also accomplished down the road if they ever thought to start talking to Iran.

What exactly are you implying here? It would have been intelligent of the United States to sell missle-defense systems to Iran to ensure a MAD scenario between themselves and Israel?

[Balta1701]

I totally disagree with your premise that Russia would support Israel in that scenario.  Therefore, on balance, the rest of your post I have issues with.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, though.

I think there's a difference between not supporting Iran and supporting Israel. Russia would merely have to stay neutral in that case. It may well also try to use its leverage to bring any conflict to an end, solely to try to ensure oil and commerce supplies from Iran.

 

Then again, I for one don't buy that Iran would actually launch a first strike against Israel, because that would mean the end of the Iranian regime, even if they had the bomb. (the U.S. would instantly get involved, etc.) However, if they wait and let Israel attack first, then that makes Iran the victim, no matter how much they provoked Israel. In that case, they'd be fairly certain to have a lot of friends, probably including China and Russia.

[Balta1701]

What exactly are you implying here? It would have been intelligent of the United States to sell missle-defense systems to Iran to ensure a MAD scenario between themselves and Israel?

Not if the U.S. wanted to keep the option of attacking Iran open. But if a country wanted to set up that sort of system because they were friends with Iran and wanted to maintain trade agreements with Iran, that's exactly what they would do.

[southsideirish71]

So this morning, there was This moderately interesting column in my LA Times by Rosa Brooks, one of their columnists that you probably wouldn't call a major hawk.  Her prediction?  There will be a war with Iran by September.

 

So, I did a bit of reading into these Tor missiles, and They do actually appear to be quite formidable.  They can operate in radar-jamming environments, so traditional anti-radar missiles won't necessarily work well against them.  They have a very high kill rate, hitting somewhere between 92 to 95% of airplane targets.  They also have the ability to hit cruise missiles, hitting between 60 and 90% of those.  It can engage multiple targets simultaneously.  Basically we're talking about a missile that is approaching the quality of the current Patriot system.

 

As far as I can tell, once Iran gets these operational, there will be exactly 2 weapons systems in the world (that we know about) which are capable of actually doing damage to the Iranian nuclear program without extreme casualties; the F117 and B2 stealth bombers, which these missiles still cannot detect.  So therefore, if Israel genuinely were planning a strike, this author is correct, as of September of this year, the cost of such a strike to the IDF would go up massively. 

 

Unless Iran installed more of these missiles, they wouldn't have enough to totally defeat the IDF with just those devices, but it is now officially safe to say that beyond Iran's fortifications on the ground, Iran is prepared to make any attempt to shut down their nuclear programs into a major conflict in the air over their country, involving heavy casualties on both sides.

 

Our first strike MO for the last few engagements has been the same. We hit hard with Cruise Missles and Stealth aircraft the first few waves to take out command and control and also use it to take out Sam installations. Once that is thinned out, we then lauch major operations with the rest of the air fleet. We also have F22 Raptors that have stealth capabilities to add to the B2 and the F117.

 

Also remember that the Russians talk up their techology and their ability to compete, however in the last few wars we have ran up against the Russian technology and have beat it. Remember the Mig29 in the first gulf war, and how supperior it was to our fighters. How the advanced sam installations would take us down. Their tanks and how they would take us out due to numbers. We were ahead of them technologically then and we are now.

 

The only real risk that we have to worry about in a fight with Iran is the following.

 

Silkworm missle attacks on our fleet in the gulf.

Balistic Missle attacks from their long range rockets on Israel, and our bases in the gulf.

 

This of course is until we get air supperiority.

 

Suicide attacks.

 

This will be the lingering issue for the long haul. You cant defend the single minded insane person who wants to kill himself and lots of people around him.

 

Iran wants confrontation, at least their nutty leader does. He wants to bring about the 4th imam. He is a religious nutcase. The Iranian people dont want a war.

Edited April 28, 2006 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

Our first strike MO for the last few engagements has been the same.  We hit hard with Cruise Missles and Stealth aircraft the first few waves to take out command and control and also use it to take out Sam installations.  Once that is thinned out, we then lauch major operations with the rest of the air fleet.  We also have F22 Raptors that have stealth capabilities to add to the B2 and the F117. 

 

Also remember that the Russians talk up their techology and their ability to compete, however in the last few wars we have ran up against the Russian technology and have beat it.  Remember the Mig29 in the first gulf war, and how supperior it was to our fighters.  How the advanced sam installations would take us down. Their tanks and how they would take us out due to numbers.  We were ahead of them technologically then and we are now. 

 

The only real risk that we have to worry about in a fight with Iran is the following.

 

Silkworm missle attacks on our fleet in the gulf.

Balistic Missle attacks from their long range rockets on Israel, and our bases in the gulf.

 

This of course is until we get air supperiority.

 

Suicide attacks. 

 

This will be the lingering issue for the long haul.  You cant defend the single minded insane person who wants to kill himself and lots of people around him.

 

Iran wants confrontation, at least their nutty leader does.  He wants to bring about the 4th imam.  He is a religious nutcase.  The Iranian people dont want a war.

I think its important to point out here that the problems the Iraqi air force had during the gulf war were NOT a problem of technology. Those Fulcrums and SAM sites failed because the Iraqis didn't know how to use them, and in many cases, didn't maintain them. This will (I am guessing) not be true in Iran, at least not to the same extent.

[Balta1701]

As far as I can tell, these things wouldn't be as big of a threat to the U.S., it would just drag out any air campaign longer, because you'd have to go after them first with the stealths. It's doable, but it just takes an extra day or two of sorties. Cruise Missiles...well this system is used by quite a few countries, including China, and supposedly it's moderately successful against them. If the U.S. goes after those, they'll almost certainly go after them with stealths.

 

The real issue here is how much Israel is willing to trust the U.S. as its first line of defense. If Israel is willing to hold off and let the U.S. say "We'll deal with it", then we'll be ok, because there's nothing yet built that's going to find a B-2. But Israel has a habit of not wanting to rely solely on other countries for its security. These sorts of installations would pose a major threat to the IDF, and the IDF would lose a ton of planes in trying to go after them.

 

That's the real problem...if Israel isn't willing to rely 100% on the U.S., they'll have to strike before these things are active or potentially lose their ability to strike.

[southsideirish71]

As far as I can tell, these things wouldn't be as big of a threat to the U.S., it would just drag out any air campaign longer, because you'd have to go after them first with the stealths.  It's doable, but it just takes an extra day or two of sorties.  Cruise Missiles...well this system is used by quite a few countries, including China, and supposedly it's moderately successful against them.  If the U.S. goes after those, they'll almost certainly go after them with stealths.

 

The real issue here is how much Israel is willing to trust the U.S. as its first line of defense.  If Israel is willing to hold off and let the U.S. say "We'll deal with it", then we'll be ok, because there's nothing yet built that's going to find a B-2.  But Israel has a habit of not wanting to rely solely on other countries for its security.  These sorts of installations would pose a major threat to the IDF, and the IDF would lose a ton of planes in trying to go after them.

 

That's the real problem...if Israel isn't willing to rely 100% on the U.S., they'll have to strike before these things are active or potentially lose their ability to strike.

 

You hit it on the head. The first thing that will happen the minute Iran is attacked, is that Iran will lob something over at Israel to bring them into the frey. You know their rockets are a hell of a lot more accurate than the bottle rocket scuds that Iraq had back in the first gulf war.

 

We started using stealth based cruise missles in this last war. So B52s could come in and stay quite a bit away and do so stand off launches for a first salvo also.

[samclemens]

Yes, it is... Russia is still a major player in world affairs.

 

In fact, Russia, I predict, will be the final catalyst involved in starting the next 'big' war - and something like this might be enough to set it off.

 

i agree. when the next big one starts, russia will be on the other side, whether openly or behind the scenes.

[mr_genius]

f*** it, let's invade Russia. it's long overdue

[AbeFroman]

If these things are using russian technology, they are doing us a favor. Back in 91 during the first gulf war, I remember a number of retired russian generals warning us that the Iraqi Army had much of the finest Russian technology around. In short, the Iraqi's were predicted to give us a pretty hard time in 1991....

 

... somehow, things didn't turn out that way. If we had gone to war with Russia in the 70's or 80's, barring any nuclear deployment, we would have destroyed them.

 

The more money Iran spends on Russian technology, the less they will have for other nefarious purposes. Let them waste it.

[Balta1701]

If these things are using russian technology, they are doing us a favor.  Back in 91 during the first gulf war, I remember a number of retired russian generals warning us that the Iraqi Army had much of the finest Russian technology around.  In short, the Iraqi's were predicted to give us a pretty hard time in 1991....

 

... somehow, things didn't turn out that way.  If we had gone to war with Russia in the 70's or 80's, barring any nuclear deployment, we would have destroyed them. 

 

The more money Iran spends on Russian technology, the less they will have for other nefarious purposes.  Let them waste it.

Just because it is Russian technology doesn't mean it's automatically bad. The biggest problem with the Iraqis was not the technology, it was the training. They simply didn't know how to use most of the things, since most of the people were conscripts forced into the army and taught never to do anything unless they were ordered from above.

 

And furthermore, these things are light years beyond any of the technology we faced in Iraq, except maybe the Mig 29's, and those were the places where the intensive U.S. fighter training really paid off.

 

In the 73 Yom Kippur war, Israel fought using western technology, and their air force was absolutely battered by Russian SAM's. Russian SAM's tore U.S. planes apart in 'Nam too.

 

The only weapons in the world that can defeat these sorts of devices on a regular basis are stealth weapons. That is all.

Edited April 28, 2006 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

The biggest problem with the Iraqis was not the technology, it was the training.  They simply didn't know how to use most of the things, since most of the people were conscripts forced into the army and taught never to do anything unless they were ordered from above.

 

 

 

 

 

not sure about that

 

their tanks and other assault vehicles were woefully outmatched, it had little to do with experience IMO.

 

also, does Russia have stealth fighers for sale? if not, we should be able to dominate air combat.

Edited April 28, 2006 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

not sure about that

 

their tanks and other assault vehicles were woefully outmatched, it had little to do with experience IMO.

Ok, you're right on that one, the Iraqi ground army didn't exactly have armor that could match up against an Abrams. But at least their air defense network, that was modern, it just was staffed with people who were terribly trained, and the U.S. cut it apart. It wasn't the technology that failed them in the air.

[Balta1701]

also, does Russia have stealth fighers for sale?  if not, we should be able to dominate air combat.

Again, the question is not us as much as it is Israel. The U.S. can eliminate anything the Iranians have using stealth, just need enough time to do so. The Israelis could however see this as a major threat...it could remove their ability to pull another Osirak.

 

Of course, the U.S. isn't exactly overflowing with Stealth Fighters either...I don't think we have a full squadron equipped with them even now.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just because it is Russian technology doesn't mean it's automatically bad.  The biggest problem with the Iraqis was not the technology, it was the training.  They simply didn't know how to use most of the things, since most of the people were conscripts forced into the army and taught never to do anything unless they were ordered from above.

 

And furthermore, these things are light years beyond any of the technology we faced in Iraq, except maybe the Mig 29's, and those were the places where the intensive U.S. fighter training really paid off.

 

 

Agreed, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Rex Kickass]

What exactly are you implying here? It would have been intelligent of the United States to sell missle-defense systems to Iran to ensure a MAD scenario between themselves and Israel?

 

A MAD scenario implies detente and stability for the region in which the regime is held in check. Once India AND Pakistan went nuclear, even though it seemed at times that war seemed inevitable over Kashmir, it never actually happened. Why is that? Partially because of the efforts of other neighbors to contain a dispute diplomatically. But mostly because the knowledge that striking first would enable a crippling if not fatal return strike for both the state and its leaders. So any kind of serious fighting was deterred. The same thing would happen between nuclear Iran and Israel. Israel would not strike first in Iran because they know that the return fire would be so great that it would be the end of Israel (not that I think Israel has this in mind). The same would apply for Iran.

 

The Iranian president may be bats*** crazy, but ultimately he isn't gonna be the guy to push the button. That falls to the Imams who control the country - and they'd rather have control than die a martyr to a cause that won't remember them. And don't think they don't feel that way - or else they wouldn't have stopped fighting Iraq in 1989.

 

I'm not saying that the US could only acheive detente by giving missile defense systems to Iran. I am saying that there are only one state or quasi-state actors in the national security realm that the US will not negotiate with: and that's Iran. Had we been willing to talk to them in 2002 or 2003, they may not have accelerated their nuke program. Probably because they see a US invasion as a legitimate threat. One which is only truly neutralized with a nuclear arsenal. It's the reason North Korea went nuclear. And it's the reason that Iran is going nuclear. If it was all about attacking Israel with dirty bombs - that would have already happened.