While I can not comment on if this is in fact a con by the Administration or not, I do disagree with the readers response on the age of Iran's air fleet. Yes, the designs for a majority of America's current fleet originated in the 70's, but that fact only impacts the basic airframe. The F-18 is a perfect example of this, it's current overhall to the E/F configuations renders it a far more potent fighter than originally intended, with improved weapon suite, flight avionics, and engine systems. Iran may sport a well made Western fighter, but without modernization and spare parts, they at most a liablity.
Thanks for stopping by and giving your input, Dr. Zorders. Yes, I guess it's one thing to buy a plane, but another thing to upgrade it, maintain it, etc.
3:19 AM, August 25, 2006
It's not very strong, according to Steve Sailer (via Weigel on Sullivan): If Iran is really out to conquer the region, it would need tanks, lots and lots of tanks, plus air cover, since tank armadas are dead ducks in the open desert. So, is Iran building up its tank fleet and air force preparatory to its upcoming blitzkriegs? Here's what the Center for Strategic and International Studies says about Iran: "Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate and much of it is worn. Iran lost some 50-60% of its land order of battle in the climatic battles of the Iran-Iraq War, and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them. It also has lacked the ability to find a stable source of parts and supplies for most of its Western-supplied equipment, and has not have access to upgrades and modernization programs since the fall of the Shah in 1979."Now of course Iran might very well be focusing on nuclear and missile technology. But in all this Iran hysteria it's important not to inflate all aspects of the threat.
I'm a bit skeptical that Iran's military is as shoddy as Mr. Sailer depicts it. It seems to me that with its oil wealth, Iran ought to be able to buy itself some better hardware, even if the US and its allies have an arms embargo in place. Couldn't Iran buy stuff from Russia, China, or someone else? Or are those countries refusing to sell weapons to Iran too?
(If iranian, one of my readers, could weigh in on this issue, I'd appreciate it.)
UPDATE: A reader responds to Weigel's original post: I think Sailer is being a little flip about the Iranian airforce. First, the F4 was and is a very credible fighter. It may have first entered service in the late '50s, but you know what? The fighters that make up the front line of the US line-up all entered service in the 1970s, 30 years ago (that's right: the F-14, F-16, and F-18 all debuted in the '70s). Age of first introduction is not a very interesting metric. But this reader also agrees that the overall inflation of Iran on the part of this administration is "another giant con-job" a la the buildup to the Iraq invasion.
posted by Zachary Drake at 9:23 PM on Aug 24, 2006
"Analysis of Iran's conventional military"
3 Comments -
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1:27 AM, August 25, 2006
While I can not comment on if this is in fact a con by the Administration or not, I do disagree with the readers response on the age of Iran's air fleet. Yes, the designs for a majority of America's current fleet originated in the 70's, but that fact only impacts the basic airframe. The F-18 is a perfect example of this, it's current overhall to the E/F configuations renders it a far more potent fighter than originally intended, with improved weapon suite, flight avionics, and engine systems. Iran may sport a well made Western fighter, but without modernization and spare parts, they at most a liablity.
1:30 AM, August 25, 2006
Thanks for stopping by and giving your input, Dr. Zorders. Yes, I guess it's one thing to buy a plane, but another thing to upgrade it, maintain it, etc.
3:19 AM, August 25, 2006