Iran to buy Pechora-2A - Page 4




 
--
 
December 28th, 2005  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond
For one they had the French Roland which is an extremely deadly low level system which the US air forces had an extremely healthy respect for during the Gulf War 1991.
How come the coalition lost so few planes to Roland then? Did the Iraqis not have enough Rolands to cover wide areas and the coalition air forces simply avoided the areas covered by Rolands?

I think the Roland is German-French, not just French, and is one of the AA missiles weapons Germany relies on, along with some old Patriots and Hawks. Germany is also involved in the MEADS project.
December 28th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
may be the allies' ECM/ECCM affected their performance?!
December 29th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
How come the coalition lost so few planes to Roland then? Did the Iraqis not have enough Rolands to cover wide areas and the coalition air forces simply avoided the areas covered by Rolands?

I think the Roland is German-French, not just French, and is one of the AA missiles weapons Germany relies on, along with some old Patriots and Hawks. Germany is also involved in the MEADS project.
Dear Member,

They basically avoided going low where the Roland had coverage. In fact an A-10A crossed in to an area where a Roland firing unit had been moved and was shot down I believe loosing the pilot. The orginal Roland was French and then the Germans joined the program. The Roland supplied to Iraqi were an export version manufactured totally in France because of German arms export laws.

To the other member. ECCM does not work well against the Roland in the non-radar firing mode. The Roland is radio controlled by a very narrow beam and the recieving antennas (ie like the Rapier) face rearward and are hard to jam.

Jack E. Hammond
--
December 29th, 2005  
major liability
 
 
It would be expensive as hell in both money and collateral damage, but I think a veritable SWARM of hundreds of simultaneously launched cruise missiles could reduce their armies to a few guys with AKs pretty quick.
December 29th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Underlying thing this comes back to: Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

1.) Iran did sign it.
2.) If Iran wants to enrich Uranium for 100% peaceful purposes, more power to them. But because Enriched Uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons, it is Iran's responsibility to prove that they are not breaking the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Constant unrestricted monitoring by impartial/neutral overseers would be a sufficient act of good faith to make the rest of the world a lot less nervous about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
3.) If Iran is even remotely suspected of having a nuclear warhead or even the capability to make one, every nation in the Middle East will immediately scramble to develop their own nuclear weapons, just to protect themselves.
4.) Suddenly, we have a dozen-odd new nations with nukes. That makes a dozen-odd new possible "OOPS!!!" scenarios: The kind that touch off nuclear exchange/holocaust and EVERYBODY ON THIS EARTH DIES.
4.) It is in the best interests of every nation in the world to not blast the human race into extinction.
5.) All of that is exactly why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is there to begin with.

So my question would be: Is Iran willing to take steps to PROVE that they're not working on making a nuclear weapon??

BTW, I think several people are being discourteous to Marwan. Marwan was not exactly courteous in his response. Can't we all just get along??
December 30th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
So my question would be: Is Iran willing to take steps to PROVE that they're not working on making a nuclear weapon??
NO! They have been hiding their nukes for 18 years and the mad mullahs can not and shouldnt be trusted at all!

Once they acquire the nukes, they will use it against their own people first, then Israelis and Americans!

No Nukes for Mad People!

Once they are overthrown and a responsible and friendly government takes place (like the Shah's era) then Iranians can decide if they need nukes for peaceful purposes or not!
December 30th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
I just don't see the need for more nukes in the world and we should ty to prevent nations like Iraq from getting a hold of them.
December 30th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
4.) It is in the best interests of every nation in the world to not blast the human race into extinction.
I'm with you till this one bruv. Correct me if I am wrong but when a nation is a theocracy whose religion states the easiest ticket to paradise is dying in a Jihad your logic falls short. At least according to my understanding and I'm still reading so I am far from infallible.
December 30th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Thats what scares me about Iran, they dont care if they lose, as long as the Israelis lose to.
December 31st, 2005  
localgrizzly
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marwan
I'm sorry but i didnt get what u mean in the first part of your paragraph!, your F-117's have been shot down by old outdated soviet SA-3 so please dont think it can do anything and how do you know if that F-16 is not manuvering?
\
Check ypour facts,sir. NO F117 has EVER been shot down, by ANYONE.