Iran has deployed missle capable of reaching Isreal, Russia

[Wicked Pilot]

The day Iran can afford FLANKERs is the day I eat my hat.

A Flanker painted on the side of my future F-15 would look very nice indeed.

[Howedar]

Why not three?

[Axis Kast]

Books such as the "Hamlyn Pocket Guide to Military Aircraft" refer to an upcoming upgrade for the F-14A out of Iran. I'm not positive how fresh or accurate such rumors might be, but it speaks to the relative mystique of the aircraft in that particular country.

From what I can tell, there are twenty or so F-14As still flying in Iran - all approaching the end of their service lives and flying without the sophisticated training or equipment that made it so great an aircraft in American hands.

Incidentially, the Iranians have joined countries such as South Africa and the former Yugoslavia in recent years, reverse-engineering or producing their own fairly acceptable equipment while under partial embargo.

[Raptor 597]

Maybe you will get drafted....

Nah, even if I were legal age a two year only run would be a wasye as training troops are expensive. Maybe they'll make it three of four years.

[Rubberanvil]

The Ayatollah tried to buy Fulcrums from Moldova at one point.

The US bought them instead, as I recall. Probably to prevent them from going to Iran, if what you're saying is correct.

Yes the U.S. Government did buy them. There were something like 12-36ish of them [I forgot the number , their spare parts, weapons, and the repair equipment for $50-$80 million for all of it.

[Iceberg]

The four Kidd-class DDGs (which were basically AAW-optimized Spru-cans) were originally built for the Shah's navy and bought by the USN when Khomeini's government took over.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes the U.S. Government did buy them. There were something like 12-36ish of them [I forgot the number , their spare parts, weapons, and the repair equipment for $50-$80 million for all of it.

Are they sitting somewhere out in New Mexico now, or did we sell them to someone else?

[Hasler]

Are they sitting somewhere out in New Mexico now, or did we sell them to someone else?

I think they are being used by top gun. I'm pretty sure ive seen pictures of a couple Fulcrums at NAS Oceana.

[Sea Skimmer]

The four Kidd-class DDGs (which were basically AAW-optimized Spru-cans) were originally built for the Shah's navy and bought by the USN when Khomeini's government took over.

And an additional two where canceled outright, the Shah also had about 1200 more tanks on order, about 160 F-16's with plans for another 140 , 7 E-3's, and a huge shitload of other stuff on order. By the late 80's the nations military would probably have been third or forth in the world in terms of ground and air forces, if not for the revolution.

Are they sitting somewhere out in New Mexico now, or did we sell them to someone else?

They all remain in US possession, several where completely dissembled as where many of the 500 odd AA-8,10 and 11 missiles bought along with them. But a plan to use them for dissimilar training feel through because of cost and an unreliable source of spare parts. The US made the buy because they aircraft where nuclear capable and on the market, I don't believe there was any specific deal for them to go to Iran.

[Sea Skimmer]

?Typical..you would have thought that after Jutland that they would have seen the folly of the Battlecruiser type

In a way that experience hurt the RN, in WW2 Britain would have been better served by Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal then the R's.

[Stuart Mackey]

?Typical..you would have thought that after Jutland that they would have seen the folly of the Battlecruiser type

In a way that experience hurt the RN, in WW2 Britain would have been better served by Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal then the R's.

Possibly, but those ships would have been stuffed by 1939, econnmically and in tetrms of actual fighting capacity. The R' class were well and truly at the end of their life span by then.
They also had very limited capacity for upgrades.

[Stuart Mackey]

?Typical..you would have thought that after Jutland that they would have seen the folly of the Battlecruiser type

In a way that experience hurt the RN, in WW2 Britain would have been better served by Tiger, Lion and Princess Royal then the R's.

Also they would have been orphans with their main armament. The last thing the RN would have wanted was another heavy calibre to deal with at a time of financial constraint in the 30's.

[Sea Skimmer]

Possibly, but those ships would have been stuffed by 1939, econnmically and in tetrms of actual fighting capacity. The R' class were well and truly at the end of their life span by then.
They also had very limited capacity for upgrades.

The Royal navy still had a huge stock of 13.5 inch gun barrels and ammunition

They'd need refit, boilers especially and losing a couple six and four inch low angle guns for some four or 4.5 inch twins along with armor upgrades. But they should be able to handel that, other ships of the same vintage could amnd they all needed it. Even with no upgrades but some high angle 4 inchers they'd be better then tthree R's. They'd kick the Italians asses and be able to bring them to action more often, 27+ knot battlecruisers are a bit better for that then the 25, often 23 and even 21 knot battle line the UK had in the Mediterranean. Doubling the number of RN battlecruisers would also make the pocket battleships look like an even worse idea.

Also they would have been orphans with their main armament. The last thing the RN would have wanted was another heavy calibre to deal with at a time of financial constraint in the 30's.

The RN had 13.5 inch guns active up until the London Naval treaty and after that held onto a vast stockpile of 13.5 inch guns and ammunition. I don't think there going to be hurt that badly.

Anyway this all requires hindsight to know that the enemy cruisers will be a greater threat then their battleships and the role carriers will play in WW2. In reality of course the idea of holding onto lightly protected battlecruisers with an 8x13.5 inch broadsides in place of one of 15 inch guns would be seen as absurd when you look at the heavy gun line of the USN.

By the same reasoning, the USN should have argued only for two Colorado's at Washington and completed Constellation as a gunship. I can just image the Japanese attempting to rebuild one of their ships into a counter and requiring the Yamato to make 35 knots.

[Axis Kast]

If I remember correctly, Iran was out shopping for the Shir 2 at one point, a tank that around 1979 would have put them three or four feet up as compared to the United States - or even the Soviet Union.

[Howedar]

Shir 2 was almost a Challenger 1. The M1 Abrams was first produced in 1978.


Therefore, you are wrong.

[Stuart Mackey]

Possibly, but those ships would have been stuffed by 1939, econnmically and in tetrms of actual fighting capacity. The R' class were well and truly at the end of their life span by then.
They also had very limited capacity for upgrades.

The Royal navy still had a huge stock of 13.5 inch gun barrels and ammunition

They'd need refit, boilers especially and losing a couple six and four inch low angle guns for some four or 4.5 inch twins along with armor upgrades. But they should be able to handel that, other ships of the same vintage could amnd they all needed it. Even with no upgrades but some high angle 4 inchers they'd be better then tthree R's. They'd kick the Italians asses and be able to bring them to action more often, 27+ knot battlecruisers are a bit better for that then the 25, often 23 and even 21 knot battle line the UK had in the Mediterranean. Doubling the number of RN battlecruisers would also make the pocket battleships look like an even worse idea.

As you say below, hindsight. They would have had to have the entire vessel virtually stripped of machinery and refitted to give reliable service and thats not counting wear on the hull itself. This was simply not possible by 1929. Thats what I ment by upgrades, should have been more clear. Against a battle line they would have been even worse than as built given their age, but they would have been ok agianst the European axis light ships.

Also they would have been orphans with their main armament. The last thing the RN would have wanted was another heavy calibre to deal with at a time of financial constraint in the 30's.

The RN had 13.5 inch guns active up until the London Naval treaty and after that held onto a vast stockpile of 13.5 inch guns and ammunition. I don't think there going to be hurt that badly.

Oh? didnt know that, learn something new every day. I assumed they would have disposed of that stuff when the last of the 13.5 gun ships went out of service..bar some for Iron Duke.
NZ, for example will dispose of all its 4.5 ammunition and 4.5 gun barrels when HMNZS Canturbury leaves serive in 05.

Anyway this all requires hindsight to know that the enemy cruisers will be a greater threat then their battleships and the role carriers will play in WW2. In reality of course the idea of holding onto lightly protected battlecruisers with an 8x13.5 inch broadsides in place of one of 15 inch guns would be seen as absurd when you look at the heavy gun line of the USN.

By the same reasoning, the USN should have argued only for two Colorado's at Washington and completed Constellation as a gunship. I can just image the Japanese attempting to rebuild one of their ships into a counter and requiring the Yamato to make 35 knots.

I look at such matters from the point of what is economicaly possible with a given vehicle or ship and its capability to do a job. For those old BC's they would have needed to be gutted in the early 30's and their machinery replaced to make them suitable for war service. Why do that on the off chance they may be able to plant some cruisers or protect a carrier? Better to build new fast BB's that will last for 30 years and can do the job a hell of a lot better than great war relics.

[Sea Skimmer]

If I remember correctly, Iran was out shopping for the Shir 2 at one point, a tank that around 1979 would have put them three or four feet up as compared to the United States - or even the Soviet Union.

Incorrect. The Shir 1 and Shir 2 where specifically developed for Iranian requirements from the Chieftain. The Shir 1 wasn't much of an improvement and only about 125 where ordered, the few that where produced went to Jordan. The Shir 2 was much better, over 1100 order as well, and later was developed in the Challenger II. But by the time it would have entered Iranian service the US was fielding Abrams tanks by the division. The T-80 was also around in vast numbers.

[Axis Kast]

When did the T-80 first roll off production lines?

And I always thought the Abrams was build in 1980.

[Sea Skimmer]

As you say below, hindsight. They would have had to have the entire vessel virtually stripped of machinery and refitted to give reliable service and thats not counting wear on the hull itself. This was simply not possible by 1929.

It would have been within a few years, the Italian rebuilds added more speed to ships not designed for it They had to take up a turret to do it, but the splendid cats need maybe one more knot of speed, not the 5-6 of a Duilio or Cavour. If the money was available, massive if without trading away a couple other things, it could be done.

Oh? didnt know that, learn something new every day. I assumed they would have disposed of that stuff when the last of the 13.5 gun ships went out of service..bar some for Iron Duke.
NZ, for example will dispose of all its 4.5 ammunition and 4.5 gun barrels when HMNZS Canturbury leaves serive in 05.

Nope, in fact Turkey bought four of the surplus 13.5-inch guns and a bunch of ammunition just before WW2 broke out but they never got delivered. When it comes to artillery and ammunition nations generally throw nothing away. New Zealand is the exception not the rule.

I look at such matters from the point of what is economicaly possible with a given vehicle or ship and its capability to do a job. For those old BC's they would have needed to be gutted in the early 30's and their machinery replaced to make them suitable for war service. Why do that on the off chance they may be able to plant some cruisers or protect a carrier? Better to build new fast BB's that will last for 30 years and can do the job a hell of a lot better than great war relics.

But the Royal Navy couldn't build anymore battleships and ones with high speed weren't possibul on 35,000 tons before the 1930's. As for them being great war relics, so where the R class and the QE's.

Anyway they would indeed need major expensive rebuilds to maintain their speed and finding the money would be difficult though British spending could have been higher. The Lexington concept would probably work better, though despite flinging around one shot destroyer killers in the form of 16 inch HE shells I expect the lone example would end up with a pair of Long Lances in her hull somewhere along the slot and be under repair until 1943 when there are no more surface actions for her to fight other then mabey the Truk raid.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah crap, accidental edit instead of quote- Vympel

1980: date M1s started arriving in West Germany

Skimmer also incorrectly stated that the T-80 entered service around 1983, 7 years after the actual date.

[Vympel]

When did the T-80 first roll off production lines?

The first production model was accepted for service in 1976.

And I always thought the Abrams was build in 1980.

So did I.

[Sea Skimmer]

And I always thought the Abrams was build in 1980.

So did I.

As I recall the way it goes is the first prototypes where built in 1976, in 1978 the first production models got built, with revised armoring and a few other minor changes and full scale series production began in 1980 while the first battalion got equipped at almost the same time using the examples built earlier.

[Vympel]

As I recall the way it goes is the first prototypes where built in 1976, in 1978 the first production models got built, with revised armoring and a few other minor changes and full scale series production began in 1980 while the first battalion got equipped at almost the same time using the examples built earlier.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's correct. Makes me wonder when the T-80 was in first prototype stage etc- Jane's Armor and Artillery refers to 1976 as specifically the date it was accepted into service.

[Howedar]

Incorrect. The Shir 1 and Shir 2 where specifically developed for Iranian requirements from the Chieftain. The Shir 1 wasn't much of an improvement and only about 125 where ordered, the few that where produced went to Jordan. The Shir 2 was much better, over 1100 order as well, and later was developed in the Challenger II. But by the time it would have entered Iranian service the US was fielding Abrams tanks by the division. The T-80 was also around in vast numbers.

The Shir 2 led to the Challenger 1, which entered production in 1978 and service in 1984. The Challenger 2 did not come into being until considerably later, and is (astonishingly) based on the Challenger 1.

[Iceberg]

The four Kidd-class DDGs (which were basically AAW-optimized Spru-cans) were originally built for the Shah's navy and bought by the USN when Khomeini's government took over.

And an additional two where canceled outright, the Shah also had about 1200 more tanks on order, about 160 F-16's with plans for another 140 , 7 E-3's, and a huge shitload of other stuff on order. By the late 80's the nations military would probably have been third or forth in the world in terms of ground and air forces, if not for the revolution.

Would the Kidds count as upgraded Spruances or downgraded non-VLS Ticos, though? Because I've heard them described both ways.