Bonam Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 And I've been looking at the Saudi Army. The number of main battle tanks (including the M1A2 AND the Leopard 2A7+...Canada's tanks only are have 2A7 parts...crazy) would even give the US a run for it's money. Those tanks would be nothing more than defenseless sitting ducks to the us air force, whether they had 1000, 10000, or even a million of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Those tanks would be nothing more than defenseless sitting ducks to the us air force, whether they had 1000, 10000, or even a million of them. That's true, and in the air, the US has far more power than Saudi Arabia. I was simply saying that the amount of heavy armour that the Saudis have is amazing. It's mostly for show though, since there is very little behind it in terms of other assets. One thing is for sure, Iran wouldn't stand a chance agains Saudi Arabia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 That's true, and in the air, the US has far more power than Saudi Arabia. I was simply saying that the amount of heavy armour that the Saudis have is amazing. It's mostly for show though, since there is very little behind it in terms of other assets. One thing is for sure, Iran wouldn't stand a chance agains Saudi Arabia. To play devils advocate……there is a country between Iran and Saudi Arabia so a limited ground war would tend to be out……..And the Iranians would start lobbing their IRBMs at Saudi cities, with potentially very nasty surprises in the warheads…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) That's a possibility, but then again, the Saudi's could quickly overwhelm them with air superiority, as long as they could pinpoint the missile sites. I really don't think Iran would stand a chance. Also, Saudi Arabia has indicated that they hate Iran enough to work with Israel. Edited October 15, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 That's a possibility, but then again, the Saudi's could quickly overwhelm them with air superiority, as long as they could pinpoint the missile sites. I really don't think Iran would stand a chance. The coalition couldn’t locate all the Iraqi sites during the first Persian Excursion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 The coalition couldn’t locate all the Iraqi sites during the first Persian Excursion That's true, and Saudi Arabia would probably take casualties, but I have little doubt that they would prevail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 That's true, and in the air, the US has far more power than Saudi Arabia. I was simply saying that the amount of heavy armour that the Saudis have is amazing. It's mostly for show though, since there is very little behind it in terms of other assets. One thing is for sure, Iran wouldn't stand a chance agains Saudi Arabia. The saudis would have a harder time of winning than the usa. In modern warfare, when the usa would smash their opponent, they would meticulously blind and confuse the enemy, then hit their logistics, and then the armed forces would be smashed. Its expensive, but saves lives. I don't know if the saudis have those capabilities and would have to attack the more "traditional" way, which puts saudi arabia and iran in an old fashioned US civil war mashup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 which puts saudi arabia and iran in an old fashioned US civil war mashup. I don't know if it would be quite like that. Saudi Arabia, after all, spends more than twice what Iran does on weaponry. They have air to air capabilities that Iran could only dream of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 That's true, and Saudi Arabia would probably take casualties, but I have little doubt that they would prevail. And the Saudis wouldn't have to fight with both hands tied behind their back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 I don't know if it would be quite like that. Saudi Arabia, after all, spends more than twice what Iran does on weaponry. They have air to air capabilities that Iran could only dream of. I'm wondering about anti-air defenses. The usa has an expensive way to smash them, I don't know about the saudis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 You don’t have clue what you’re talking about…..stop well you’re ahead…….The Sunburn, like many modern missiles has an active radar transceiver incorporated into it’s guidance system……..What this means is that once the launch platform has illuminated a target with it’s own (or another platforms) radar, the missile after being launched, guides itself to the target………The Americans first developed this technology with their BAT glide bomb in WW II………The alternatives to this method are heat seekers and anti radiation……wire and laser guided…….and though now mostly going out of service semi-active homing, which required the launch platform (or another platform) to continually “paint” the target with it’s radar.and you're a clueless poser...i'd say stop while you're ahead but that's never been the case....the sunburn has an Mid-course autopilot; terminal active / passive radar which means it uses the targets active jamming sources to guide itself in... As for your ,umm, measurements of the Gulf, the important one is the surface area……over 95K sq miles…as for your measurements my bro-in-law a naval weapons systems expert says there is no hiding anymore we know where they are and they know where we are at all times...try to think in a couple of more dimensions…As for the Straits of Hormuz (I’ve been through a few times) there are numerous ways for a vessel to traverse them unnoticed…….without ships being noticed (Night time/Electronic Warfare/Electronic Countermeasures etc) all things that give the advantage to the CVBG (or any other navy with the means)………warships have been transiting them for decades without incident…….. ya the iranians have never heard of night vision, electronic countermeasures do not make ships invisible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 and you're a clueless poser...i'd say stop while you're ahead but that's never been the case....the sunburn has an Mid-course autopilot; terminal active / passive radar which means it uses the targets active jamming sources to guide itself in... A poser? I think you’re a troll…….What you’re describing is the Sunburn’s anti radiation ability….much like the HARM or Shrike missiles….both been around for decades……..The Sunburn can’t track a targets radar/ECM/EW if it’s not emitting… as for your measurements my bro-in-law a naval weapons systems expert says there is no hiding anymore we know where they are and they know where we are at all times... Yeah, with an emitting radar….Ask your brother in-law what the roles played by the EA-6B/EA-18G are..... ya the iranians have never heard of night vision, electronic countermeasures do not make ships invisible No, electronic countermeasures don’t make a ship/aircraft invisible….the exact opposite in fact, they emit all sorts of electronic noise to clutter a radar picture…….Go ask your brother in-law what the AN/SLQ-32 does….more specifically, the marks V-2 through V-4.……and ask again what the Prowlers & Growlers do to earn their keep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Like derek said, the carriers have to be found first. like my bro-in-law the naval expert said, derek doesn't have a clue... Now in a wartime scenario, I'd imagine the us would have the area clear around the carriers, making them that much harder to find.clearing the area gives away their location...you think iranians don't have radios as well? As for the radar guiding the cruise missiles, I'm fairly certain the submarines in the area and other aircraft will fix their red wagon. submarines and aircraft shoot down surface skimming missiles at mach 2-3 do they? eww I want to see the link to that technology ...The iraqis 20 years ago had a top 5 armed foces in the world based on personnel numbers and an air defence thought impregnable. How did that work out. personnel numbers are meaningless...apparently you were the only to believe they were impregnable Do you honestly believe the usa hasn't already come up with a plan to deal with a few cruise missiles?a few? it's already been determined china has sold them at least 200you're really naive, the usa wants nothing to do with a war vs iran, will it win? absolutely but at what cost...the us has no clue as how effective the iranian air defense is or how capable it's offensive missiles are...the economics of fighting a war with iran may have far greater consequences than iraq... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) like my bro-in-law the naval expert said, derek doesn't have a clue... Still waiting on your brother in-laws reply......what does the Burkes EW suite and Prowler/Growler bring to the table? Oh and ask him the purpose behind the ESSM, RIM-174 & RIM-116.….If he’s the “naval expert” (I assume Canadian) why are we getting the ESSM? Edited October 15, 2011 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 A poser? I think you’re a troll…….What you’re describing is the Sunburn’s anti radiation ability….much like the HARM or Shrike missiles….both been around for decades……..The Sunburn can’t track a targets radar/ECM/EW if it’s not emitting… Yeah, with an emitting radar….Ask your brother in-law what the roles played by the EA-6B/EA-18G are..... No, electronic countermeasures don’t make a ship/aircraft invisible….the exact opposite in fact, they emit all sorts of electronic noise to clutter a radar picture…….Go ask your brother in-law what the AN/SLQ-32 does….more specifically, the marks V-2 through V-4.……and ask again what the Prowlers & Growlers do to earn their keep. there aren't enough laughing emoticons :lol: :lol: electronic countermeasures to counter "visibility" yup now I've heard it all...."aye aye captain! I'll turn on our invisibility ray gun they'll never see us now" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 there aren't enough laughing emoticons :lol: :lol: electronic countermeasures to counter "visibility" yup now I've heard it all...."aye aye captain! I'll turn on our invisibility ray gun they'll never see us now" Mk1 eyeball doesn’t target the cruise missile …..Still waiting for your brother in laws reply... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 there aren't enough laughing emoticons :lol: :lol: electronic countermeasures to counter "visibility" yup now I've heard it all...."aye aye captain! I'll turn on our invisibility ray gun they'll never see us now" Wild Weasels intentionally goad air defences into turning 'on' so as to fry them. Go ahead...turn on your precious radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Mk1 eyeball doesn’t target the cruise missile …..Still waiting for your brother in laws reply... Derek, you posed questions with specifics and got general and rather emotional answers. If that brother in law is real, it's obvious you better not hold your breath for an answer with any depth to it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 I wonder if Koch industries had a hand in this, you know because they have been breaking U.S. sanctions with Iran for years, they give enough political money though to keep themselves out of hot water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 When was the last time Iran attacked another country? Iran rarely attacks other countries openly. However, it seems to enjoy financing a variety of groups to attack other countries, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon and Israel, in the Gulf Coast states, and elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Iran has the most advanced cruise missile technology available, there is no effective defense, warships in the persian gulf are quite literally sitting ducks...the US will win any full out war but the cost will be high, carriers will be lost... That is laughably silly, you know. Iran has a third world navy and air force, and either the US or Israel could crush them in a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 That is laughably silly, you know. Iran has a third world navy and air force, and either the US or Israel could crush them in a day. True assessment. Outdated Russian Tech just isn't what it use to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 There is some relevance to it yes. Chretien may have done things in the government that allowed Harper to do some of the things he is doing today. Remember, policy of the country does not change with the elected leader. That's not true. Policies can change widely with different administrations. In Ottawa or Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 well, canadians like to think that cause we're a bunch of socialist america haters Well... SOME of us are.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 we aren't that civillized We're a helluva lot more civilized than they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.