SinoDefence Forum

Vlad Plasmius · 03-28-2006

Quote:

super cannon that can launch shells into space

They didn't actually build that. They were developing it, but the actually gun was still on paper.

Quote:

But be careful about saying Iran is a major superpower - remember these parades are intended to create that impression - they show the elite minority of the Iranaian military. In reality, the majority of Iranian equipment is out of date.

I said Iran is probably going to be a major world power. I never said they'd be a super power or that they are currently a world power. Right now they're just a regional power and they still have to share that with several nations.

FreeAsia2000 · 03-29-2006

It is possible that Iran and Pakistan will co-operate in the future in building
weapons systems as the Shah of Iran suggested in the past

Quote:

Contributing Editor AIR MARSHAL (Retd) AYAZ AHMED KHAN talks about the faulty procedures in our defence planning and procurement sector and recommends reforms that need to take place urgently

One of the major lessons of the 1965 and 1971 wars was that defence planning and procurement policies should be re-tailored to achieve self-reliance in defence production. The low priority given to indigenize major weapon systems by Islamabad was made clear to the senior officers during the 1972 foreign tour of the first regular National Defence College course to Tehran. General Tofanian, Shah’s defence minister and former commander of the Iranian Air Force, answering a question from a NDC student (late Lt General Fazle Haq, then a Brigadier) said, "Iran -Pakistan defence cooperation has been the victim of "PARALYSIS OF ANALYSIS".

Referring to Shah’s offer to President Ayub Khan for co-assembly, joint-manufacture of main battle tanks (MBT’s) Pakistan’s hesitation and GHQ’s astonishing reply that "tank had no future", left the Iranian General Staff speechless, and the Shah angry. This unwise reply infuriated the Iranian ruler, and stalled the possibilities of self-reliance in the vital field of armour manufacture.

Pakistan Army wiz-kids had gone in circles to prove to the Field Marshal that armour i.e. the tank would be a useless weapon platform in a future war. This reply based on the study carried out by the General Staff or armour specialists reflected a state of mental paralysis which has afflicted our defence planners for a long time. Was such a conclusion based on the fact that during the 1965 war, Pakistani tanks from No1 Armoured Division had got stuck in the paddy fields of Khemkaran, and became easy targets for Indian gunners hiding in sugarcane fields? But then No. 6 Armoured Division did well in the Chawinda area to destroy Indian armour advancing towards Gujranwala. Was such a recommendation made due to the Khemkaran experience, or due to the new weapon systems i.e. ATGM’s and guided missile firing fighters and helicopters being inducted into modern armies, which could destroy exposed tanks. Frankly Field Marshal’s advisors were proven right during the 1967 Arab - Israel war. Nasser’s tanks in the Sinai desert became sitting ducks for the Israeli Air Power. Over eight hundred Egyptian tanks caught in the open were destroyed by Israeli Air force fighters. But it must not be forgotten that before going for the Egyptian armour, Israeli Air Force had caught the Egyption Air Force on the ground and destroyed it. Israeli air force had complete air superiority during the 1967 war.

Pakistan armour was not used to any great effect in the ‘71 war. And Pakistani generals were again right when in the 1973 October war, Egyptian and Syrian armies turned the tables on the Israeli Air Force and Armour by destroying it with shoulder fired SAM;s and ATGM’s. But in spite of the Arab and Israeli armour debacles in the 1967 and 1973 wars, and Pak debacle in the ‘71 war, armies every where stepped up their efforts for more and better quality tanks. India started tank manufacture in earnest, and Arjun MBT after completion of intensive test trials is ready for delivery to Indian Army armoured corps. Pakistan lost a golden opportunity for self-reliance in armour manufacture, primarily because of the inability of our decision makers to take bold and timely decisions viz armour manufacture in Pakistan with Iranian cooperation, which certainly was in our long term national interest.

Al-Kalid MBT is a victim of indecisions, time and cost over- runs, and its series production is nowhere in sight. It is worth mentioning that the first Al-Khalid was demonstrated to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in early 1992, when General Mirza Aslam Beg was the COAS. Had there been consistency in procurement planning, this vital project surely would have taken concrete shape during the last six years, and we would have seen squadrons of Al-Khalid tanks rolling the 23 March Pakistan Day parades.

General Tofanian also referred to Shah’s offer the 1965 war to fund co-assembly and progressive manufacture of French Mirage fighters in Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan again rebuffed Iranian offer. Pakistan Air Force at the time was engaged in urgent plans to procure Mirage Ill’s and V’s from France, and the Air Staff perhaps felt that the Iranian offer would hinder the pace of procurement of the urgently required fighters. But the Iranian offer merited very serious consideration, because it was being funded by Tehran, and would have been a major step towards self - reliance in the vital field of combat aircraft manufacture. The STORY OF PAKISTAN AIR FORCE does not throw any light on this offer from Iran. Senior PAF officer, and PSO’s at the time may wish to throw some light on this matter.

http://www.defencejournal.com/march98/paralysis.htm

I'm not sure that how much the Iranian military would contribute except in
terms of funding.

DPRKPTboat · 03-29-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by darth sidious

yet even with such a poor economy they manage to built some modern weapon

example

AWACS made using Il-76 and french radar

super scud with 1200km range

T-72 with extra heavy armour ( armour made from cement rubber steel and other such material)

super cannon that can launch shells into space

Yes, Iraq did manage to install some upgrades and build some good weapons, but as adeptitus said, the idea of these weapons being used to beat off the coalition was on paper and unrealistic. Most of these weapns were the only ones Saddam put on parade. Yes, those T-72s did have laser-designating rangefinders and ERA, and they did build their own version, but there were only 500 of these in service at the time of the Iraq war, used by the Republican guard. The other tanks were obsolete. People thought that the Mirage F1s in the Iraqi air force would play some part, but it was a similar story - a lack of spare parts grounded the entire air force. The realistic fact was that Iraq was no match for the U.S. in open warfare. And it could be no different for other countires we often consider as the main enemies of the west, such as North Korea, for example.
As for the "Super SCUD", if you're talking about the Al-Hussein, that was also a no show because it barely worked. It was 2 SCUDs welded together for Christs sake!!!

I didn't hear about the space cannon, but even if it had been built, it wouldn't have saved Saddam's regime.
Iraq's main downfall was Saddam's aggressive policy towards his neighbours and the west and the economic sanctions that resulted. Iran, on the other hand, played the game a bit more - after the Iran-Iraq war no further aggression was made. With the attention focused on Iraq, Iran was left alone, which allowed it to rebuild, no sanctions were placed, which is why Iran is currently a stronger regional power than Iraq was under Saddam. Its basically what Iraq would have been if it had not had its economy destroyed by Saddam. Its only now that it is a major concern of the west.
But remember, it is still a poor country - Argentina is also a poor country - at the monet Iran has the status of a gradually developing nation - but its no China. In terms of modernisation, it still has a long way to go, which is why I'm impressed that its able to produce modern equipment idigenously.

darth sidious · 03-29-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DPRKPTboat

Yes, Iraq did manage to install some upgrades and build some good weapons, but as adeptitus said, the idea of these weapons being used to beat off the coalition was on paper and unrealistic. Most of these weapns were the only ones Saddam put on parade. Yes, those T-72s did have laser-designating rangefinders and ERA, and they did build their own version, but there were only 500 of these in service at the time of the Iraq war, used by the Republican guard. The other tanks were obsolete. People thought that the Mirage F1s in the Iraqi air force would play some part, but it was a similar story - a lack of spare parts grounded the entire air force. The realistic fact was that Iraq was no match for the U.S. in open warfare. And it could be no different for other countires we often consider as the main enemies of the west, such as North Korea, for example.
As for the "Super SCUD", if you're talking about the Al-Hussein, that was also a no show because it barely worked. It was 2 SCUDs welded together for Christs sake!!!

I didn't hear about the space cannon, but even if it had been built, it wouldn't have saved Saddam's regime.
Iraq's main downfall was Saddam's aggressive policy towards his neighbours and the west and the economic sanctions that resulted. Iran, on the other hand, played the game a bit more - after the Iran-Iraq war no further aggression was made. With the attention focused on Iraq, Iran was left alone, which allowed it to rebuild, no sanctions were placed, which is why Iran is currently a stronger regional power than Iraq was under Saddam. Its basically what Iraq would have been if it had not had its economy destroyed by Saddam. Its only now that it is a major concern of the west.
But remember, it is still a poor country - Argentina is also a poor country - at the monet Iran has the status of a gradually developing nation - but its no China. In terms of modernisation, it still has a long way to go, which is why I'm impressed that its able to produce modern equipment idigenously.

look up project babylon and you will see the super cannon is actualy under construction by the time of the gulf war

as for Al-Hussein you got it wrogn again it uses the primary engine of a SCUD ( based on german V-2) adn a lenghten body to house more fuel this conbine with a 250kg war head caused the increase renge not wielding two toughter

utelore · 03-29-2006

during the engagments I had with the republican guard NONE of the T-72 that I engaged had reactive armour. some of their T-54/55 had passive type armour added on.

DPRKPTboat · 03-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by utelore

during the engagments I had with the republican guard NONE of the T-72 that I engaged had reactive armour. some of their T-54/55 had passive type armour added on.

Wait a minute - were you in one of the Gulf wars? That's interesting, I didn't know that. Were you close enough to see their tanks? They never got close enough to fire at the U.S. tanks.
Well, the eyewitness said it - it was probably only a minority of Iraqi T-72s that had ERA or laser guidance. Perhaps only a few dozen. Maybe its the same for some of Iran's older tanks, like those T-55s that were on parade. Iran does have T-72s as well as indogenous tanks, right?

Su-34 · 03-30-2006

Iran Army tank force is junk compared to Egypt Army tank fleet of M1-A1 tanks. Nations that use T-72 tanks in their armies in the 21st century is militarily...weak. Iran's Army needs tanks that match performance of Merkava 4, M1-A2, and Challenger 2 if it wants to defend against external threats.

Gollevainen · 03-30-2006

Quote:

Nations that use T-72 tanks in their armies in the 21st century is militarily...weak.

oh no, not weak. You see it's not always the quality, but the ability to get the best from it. Countryes with even more inferior forces have managed to defeat superior enemyes. But i do agree, Iran would have the use for modern tanks. Wonder will there ever be more than just rumours about the Zulfigar II???

Indianfighter · 03-30-2006

Since the indigenous development of military hardware by Iran is being discussed, the following are really interesting insights into Iran's indigenous fighter aircrafts:

1] Azarakhsh : Iran was not known to have possessed advanced technology to build fighter planes or tanks.

According to one theory, Iran cobbled together an aircraft by reverse-engineered elements from a number of other aircraft. Evidently a modified F-5, this Iranian design evolved from an examination of the wide variety of fighter aircraft in Iran's inventory [which include both the F-4 and F-5], along with training and experimentation.

A scaled-up version of the US Northrop Grumman F-5f Tiger, Azarakhsh features shoulder mounted air intakes. It is said to be a 10- to 15- percent larger than the F-5. It incorporates an Iranian-designed radar, but with some of the avionics modules actually of Russian design.

In June 1999 it was reported that Iran had begun series production of the Azarakhsh. As of 2000 only four examples of the Azarakhsh were thought to be in existence, and series production was expected to start in 2001. As of 2001 there were six in inventory, with a production schedule established for 30 aircraft over the following three years.

Source with photo :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../azarakhsh.htm

Comments : Iran beats even India in the diversity of the aircrafts in its Air-Force. From US made F-5s and F-14s to Russian MiG-29s, Su24, and Su-25 to French Mirage-1 and Chinese F-6 and F-7, IrAF has many frontline aircrafts of the 1980s.

Thus, just like the Zulfiqar, they assembled their own fighter plane, by combining good features of all aircrat, although the end-result appears to be very similar to the US F-5.

It may be mentioned, that this indigenous innovation by learning from the leftovers from a begone era, under the cloud of isolation and secrecy......is fascinating.

I believe that the Zulfiqar tank is much more indigenous that the Al-Khalid tank of Pakistan. The reason is that the Zulfiqar takes some features and modifications from many tanks such as M-1A1, M-60, and T-72 and is thus TOTALLY UNIQUE (after all, even Indian hardware designers do look at brochures and pictures to see what the hardware looks like. For example, the Kaveri engine).

In contrast, the Al-Khalid is just an upgrade of the Chinese Type-90 or T90S, with a Ukrainian engine, besides many other Ukrainian and Chinese inputs.
According to me, it doesnt qualify to be called an "indigenous development". It is more like the F-7 jet of China, which is an uppgrade of the MiG-21.

DPRKUnderground · 03-30-2006

Pakistan used many indigenous systems and Western systems on the Al-Khalid. You could say it's like an upgraded export version. A lot if designs were based on what the Shah had in plan. Plus the Shah already had a working air industry that was fledgling. But it's amazing how the mullahs got it back into shape.

Vlad Plasmius · 03-30-2006

Azarakhsh has been subject to some serious problems in its presentation. While it was in fact a project it's possible that some projects were confused for the Azarakhsh. Iran is developing a Fighter-bomber that is believe to be the Azarakhsh 2, confused with the Azarakhsh. In fact the picture on globalsecurity.org is fake.

Here's the original pic:

http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/f5_jpg.jpg

If you look at the pic of the "Azarakhsh" you'll find it actually doesn't even have a very good emblem design on it. The bullseye emblem on the "Azarakhsh" looks more like it was done in paint. That's the only picture of it mentioned. That says to me it isn't real. In fact, it's easy to see where it's edited if you look. The two seats in the cockpit are the same and you can see both "pilots" facing the exact same way.

Supposedly the Azarakhsh was just an experimental project that was probably put aside for other projects.

The globalsecurity.org article even seems to be bogus, it seems to say that the azarakhsh has supercruise at Mach 1.6, faster than F-22, but only has a combat radius of 600 kilometers.

DPRKPTboat · 04-18-2006

I must say, Iran does put very controversial messages in its military parades. Take a look at this video:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2685595?htv=12&htv=12

Having troops doing stuff like that is not advisable if you want to convince the international community that your nuclear intentions are peaceful. And just out of interest, are there any ideas as to how many Shahab-3s Iran has in its arsenal. I've heard from some places that they only have just over a dozen. Not enough to threaten both Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle east.

zeeair · 04-20-2006

What about Al-Khalid, is it in series production or not? And any developed by Iranians APC is out there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DPRKPTboat

I must say, Iran does put very controversial messages in its military parades. Take a look at this video:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2685595?htv=12&htv=12

Having troops doing stuff like that is not advisable if you want to convince the international community that your nuclear intentions are peaceful. And just out of interest, are there any ideas as to how many Shahab-3s Iran has in its arsenal. I've heard from some places that they only have just over a dozen. Not enough to threaten both Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle east.

If delieverd well the Dozen can do the damage required.

hellboy · 04-21-2006

Latest military parade held in 18th April you can see some pictures here (this parade only includes original army not guards corps who controls most of Iran ballistic missile force then you can't see most of Iranian ballistic missiles)

http://media.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8501290319

http://mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=313502
http://mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=313505
http://mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=313500
http://mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=313498
http://mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=313485

All pictures concerning other than chinese military, should be posted in the "world military photos" -forum, thanks.

DumLoco · 04-24-2006

Iran is not like Iraq...
Little is kwown to most people about that country's capabilities. One tends to think of a very backward, unworthy third world country when hears the name.
It has a relatively big economy (the paralel with Argentina that someone made is a good comparison), natural resources, it's quite industralized, good infrastructure, makes R&D in technology and weapons... Of Mr. Bush so called "Axis of evil" states it is by far the more competent one, i really doubt that it can be crushed in a matter of 4 weeks like happened to Iraq.

SinoDefence Forum

Iran military parade

Iran military parade

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster