USAF playing cat/mouse with Iranian defenese

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-29 10:58am

If the Iranian AF had any AIM-54s left, it would be interesting to see how the USAF will deal with it....the AIM-54 has more than double the max range of AIM-120, so the Iranians get the first shot,

The Iranians probably have a few left: whether or not they're still in working order is another question...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-01-29 11:11am

kheegan wrote:If the Iranian AF had any AIM-54s left, it would be interesting to see how the USAF will deal with it....the AIM-54 has more than double the max range of AIM-120, so the Iranians get the first shot, unless the USAF manages to deploy F-22s or destroy the F-14s on the ground first....

why does the iranian military have missiles that have more range then the USA???

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-29 11:14am

The USN stopped using the AIM-54 awhile ago and the planned replacement was cancelled with the end of the Cold War.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-29 11:25am

phongn wrote:The USN stopped using the AIM-54 awhile ago and the planned replacement was cancelled with the end of the Cold War.

Something to do with the rocket motors starting to crack, the F-14s being tasked as "Bombcats" IIRC?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2005-01-29 11:27am

Eh, considering this was done constantly during the Cold War, and we actually lost aircraft doing it (and others came back real shot up), this is hardly abnormal, let alone a sign of an impending conflict.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-29 11:30am

Something to do with the rocket motors starting to crack, the F-14s being tasked as "Bombcats" IIRC?

And if the USN AIM-54s started getting rocket motor cracks, who knows if the same thing happened to the remaining Iranian missiles: I wonder if the Iranians can even replace the motors? (a moot point if they can't keep the guidance systems working)

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-01-29 11:32am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Eh, considering this was done constantly during the Cold War, and we actually lost aircraft doing it (and others came back real shot up), this is hardly abnormal, let alone a sign of an impending conflict.

The entire Cold War was an impending conflict that lasted for 45 years.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-01-29 11:47am

Ma Deuce wrote:
Something to do with the rocket motors starting to crack, the F-14s being tasked as "Bombcats" IIRC?
And if the USN AIM-54s started getting rocket motor cracks, who knows if the same thing happened to the remaining Iranian missiles: I wonder if the Iranians can even replace the motors? (a moot point if they can't keep the guidance systems working)

Rocket motor cracks can be fixed...it's part of regular maintenance. The main reason for the USN retirement is more likely because the Phoenix is at the end of its planned operational cycle.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2005-01-29 11:52am

Out of curiousity, I have a question; how effective are these SAMs in shooting down the American planes? The administration must not consider them a serious risk, since an American plane brought down in Iran would probably be a serious international problem.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-01-29 01:02pm

salm wrote:
kheegan wrote:If the Iranian AF had any AIM-54s left, it would be interesting to see how the USAF will deal with it....the AIM-54 has more than double the max range of AIM-120, so the Iranians get the first shot, unless the USAF manages to deploy F-22s or destroy the F-14s on the ground first....
why does the iranian military have missiles that have more range then the USA???

Lots of missiles have a larger maximum range than the AIM-120. Even the AIM-7 has a longer range. The difference is that the AIM-120 is an active-radar homing missile. So is the AIM-54.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-29 05:00pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
kheegan wrote:The air-modified Hawks should only be capable of SARH right?
1960s vintage Hawks could intercept IRBMs, so I could actually imagine the Iranians employing Hawk-equipped F-14s to intercept cruise missiles (IIRC they have also jury-rigged some impressive downward-scan radars on those F-14s to use them as AWACS planes, so the idea that they could track and engage cruise missiles is perhaps not far-fetched).

The aircraft came with a look down and an anti cruise missile capability when delivered. Iran wouldn't need to jury rig anything. Shooting down cruise missiles isn't hard at all anyway.

But if the US attacked it would probably launch several hundred Tomahawks and JASSM missiles just to destroy and suppress Iranian air defenses sites and fighter bases, followed by about a hundred HARM missiles to destroy any surviving radars. Then the B-2's and other bombs would fly in to actually destroy the nuclear targets. We'd also probably be destroying most of the Iranian navy (espically those Kilo class submarines), its costal defence missile sites and be striking at Iranian strike aircraft bases as well so that it isn't in a position to openly retaliate afterwards. Iran just doesn't have the resources to withstand a large US air attack, and the US has little to gain by launching a smaller attack. So that's almost certainly what we'd do.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-01-29 07:30pm

kheegan wrote:Lots of missiles have a larger maximum range than the AIM-120. Even the AIM-7 has a longer range. The difference is that the AIM-120 is an active-radar homing missile. So is the AIM-54.

Actually, they're semi-active, they operate on passive radar until about 15 miles from the target and then engage active radar the rest of the way. Component size massively limits the power and range of missile radar systems.

Remember also that the longer a missile has to fly before reaching the target, the less energy it will have when it gets there, making it a lot easier to evade than if it was launched at shorter range.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2005-01-29 09:17pm

Vendetta wrote:Remember also that the longer a missile has to fly before reaching the target, the less energy it will have when it gets there, making it a lot easier to evade than if it was launched at shorter range.

Well even the way the AIM-54 operates (climb to high altitude, dive unto target at high speed) makes hitting maneuvering fighters difficult. But getting the first shot in is always an advantage even if a lot of the missiles miss.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-01-29 09:33pm

Well yeah, the Phoenix was designed to counter long range threats to carrier groups that typically cme from larger aircraft and cruise missiles, so its performance against enemy fighters is more of a bonus than anything.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-30 08:46pm

It should be noted that there is ALWAYS something that can bring down a plane - all it takes is some jammy bastard with a MANPADS or AAA. Hell, nearly anything can bring one down if they are lucky.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-30 09:08pm

weemadando wrote:It should be noted that there is ALWAYS something that can bring down a plane - all it takes is some jammy bastard with a MANPADS or AAA. Hell, nearly anything can bring one down if they are lucky.

Quite true. But if you attack from over 15,000 feet AGL and never fly below it, suddenly nothing less then an S-60 57mm anti aircraft gun is a threat and no MANPADS can reach you. That certainly makes things immensely easier; espically since a radar guidance or at the very least ranging system is basically a must for systems that can reach that high. The day, or night rather of the low level attack is certainly waning. But if your the USAF'S at least, there aren't many people you can' fly high against and the new range of PGM's which apply to every type of weapon makes attack altitudes irrelevant.