# Iranians test their new fighters



## Aggie08 (Sep 20, 2007)

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Iran tests new homemade fighter jets

I like the part where they say it's like an F-18.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

What's that line...

My girlfriend looks like Meg Ryan. Except her face is a little differ'nt. And her body is little differ'nt.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 20, 2007)

So the Iranians are comparing their new fighter to the F-18?

That's like comparing a Mitsubishi Zero to a Grumman Hellcat.  

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2007)

We discussed this in an earlier thread. It appears to be an F-5 knock-off. Unless that thing has some super duper Jihad radar system or carries a miniature death-ray, its basically cannon fodder, although I do give them credit for developing something indigenous, especially when many of the engineers, technicians and pilots who are probably working on it are doing so under duress.

Iran reports test of new fighter jet - Yahoo! News


----------



## Glider (Sep 20, 2007)

It reminds me of the F17 rear end matched with the F20 front end. 

Note the use of technical terms


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 20, 2007)

Who gets to shoot them down first, the Israelis or Americans?

resembles th YF-17 too

,


----------



## Graeme (Sep 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> It reminds me of the F17 rear end matched with the F20 front end.



I think that describes it exactly Glider.


----------



## Glider (Sep 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Who gets to shoot them down first, the Israelis or Americans?
> 
> resembles th YF-17 too
> 
> ,



My guess would be the Saudi's. The Iranians are not that stupid, they know the USA or Isreal would make mincemeat of any attack, but they might fancy their chances of a sneak attack on Saudi Arabia.
Although well equipped the Saudi defences are more spread out, less well trained and less experienced. 
Also they may want to start a holy war and the Saudi's and Iranians hate each other with a passion. In the early 1970's when I was being trained we had Saudi's and Iranians in our unit and even though it was in the time of the Shah, they had regular fights.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 20, 2007)

Interesting thought Glider.... It would be kinda nice to sit back and watch them duke it out for a while. Iran's only chance would be a massive first strike. Followed by tons of Chinese made missiles. . Saudi has too many f-15's f-16's and soon the euro fighter.

Iran makes their own tanks too:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zulfiqar.htm


,


----------



## mkloby (Sep 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Interesting thought Glider.... It would be kinda nice to sit back and watch them duke it out for a while. Iran's only chance would be a massive first strike. Followed by tons of Chinese made missiles. . Saudi has too many f-15's f-16's and soon the euro fighter.
> 
> Iran makes their own tanks too:
> 
> ...



You mean Iran makes their own TOW targets!

It's interesting to note - we train with Saudi Arabian helo bubbas, although I have not seen any Saudi flight students lately.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> You mean Iran makes their own TOW targets!
> 
> It's interesting to note - we train with Saudi Arabian helo bubbas, although I have not seen any Saudi flight students lately.




*OPSEC* Breach!

Hey, if their fighters are as good as F-18's their tanks have to be as good as M-1's!


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 20, 2007)

The fact that they can make them should give pause for thought. I'm curious about whats on the drawing board


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The fact that they can make them should give pause for thought. I'm curious about whats on the drawing board


Spare parts?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> *OPSEC* Breach!
> 
> Hey, if their fighters are as good as F-18's their tanks have to be as good as M-1's!



How is that a security breach?


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> How is that a security breach?



>>It's interesting to note - we train with Saudi Arabian helo bubbas, although I have not seen any Saudi flight students lately.<<

Any info on troop movements is generally not discussed in open forums...
But what do I know I havent worn a uniform in 15 years!

.


----------



## machine shop tom (Sep 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> You mean Iran makes their own TOW targets!
> 
> It's interesting to note - we train with Saudi Arabian helo bubbas, although I have not seen any Saudi flight students lately.



I wonder if the main gun autoloader is the same as the Soviet one that occasionally thinks the gunner's arm is a round.

tom


----------



## mkloby (Sep 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> >>It's interesting to note - we train with Saudi Arabian helo bubbas, although I have not seen any Saudi flight students lately.<<
> 
> Any info on troop movements is generally not discussed in open forums...
> But what do I know I havent worn a uniform in 15 years!
> ...



This is not troop movement. Many foreign nationals train with the USN. They live out in town and mingle with the folks. It's a well known and publicized training program. In no way was that any breach of security, let me assure you.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> This is not troop movement. Many foreign nationals train with the USN. They live out in town and mingle with the folks. It's a well known and publicized training program. In no way was that any breach of security, let me assure you.



It was the part about them "not being around lately".. that is a troop movement.
It's a small piece that could motivate an interested party to research where they have shifted... perhaps there is a buildup we don't know about... unless you start looking for people that have moved on..

Any information is TOO MUCH information

Just a thought... I'm trying to watch out for ya!

.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

Is it just me or does the Iranian tank look like an Isreali Merkava?!?!?  Now that is friggin hilarious. These jokers have to duplicate a tank of their most hated enemy of all the tank designs in the world. That must cost Iranian engineers a few virgins upon judgement day.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> It was the part about them "not being around lately".. that is a troop movement.
> It's a small piece that could motivate an interested party to research where they have shifted... perhaps there is a buildup we don't know about... unless you start looking for people that have moved on..
> 
> Any information is TOO MUCH information
> ...



I see what you're getting at now, interrpetting it in that way. I understand your thought and intentions. Good imagination! I was not speaking of physical movement - just of not getting a chance to see and talk to any studs lately - as in days because of different schedules - regarding previous comments.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Is it just me or does the Iranian tank look like an Isreali Merkava?!?!?  Now that is friggin hilarious. These jokers have to duplicate a tank of their most hated enemy of all the tank designs in the world. That must cost Iranian engineers a few virgins upon judgement day.



You think? The face is very vertical compared to the merkava. However, I believe such an infraction would probably cause them to suffer a 10% reduction in virgin count.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

10%? C'mon fudging your enemies engineering is worth a greater reduction than that. We're talking 12yo virgins here. Sheesh.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 21, 2007)

I've always wondered if there's an Israeli or American unit/tank/aircraft nicknamed "Muslim Dating Service." I figure it has to be out there somewhere.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 21, 2007)

Yeah "C'mon f#ck with me"...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Is it just me or does the Iranian tank look like an Isreali Merkava?!?!?  Now that is friggin hilarious. These jokers have to duplicate a tank of their most hated enemy of all the tank designs in the world. That must cost Iranian engineers a few virgins upon judgement day.



Yeah it looks like a cross between a Merkava and a M-1 Abrams. Probably a knock off just like there F-5 knock off this thread is about.

I would not be too worried about this tank or the there stupid as low budget, cant find any spare parts jet.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 22, 2007)

Do ya think in any possible war with Iran...that the USAF will get the Raptors in? Or just use what they got?

Underestimating your enemy is the quickest way to lose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2007)

I dont think the US would need the Raptors. Sorry but the Iranians do not have a very up to date airforce or military. 

I am not underestimating them but it is the truth. They have a large military but not very well supplied. They are short on spare parts.

The aircraft up there has been analyzed over and over and it is nothing more than a F-5 which they have plenty of but lack spare parts. They basically redesigned the F-5 and modified existing ones. Nothing more. Performance wise it is no different than an F-5. Take a look at it...

Lets take a look at the Iraninan Airforce (based off of Janes and Global Security analasys):

*Fighters*

*Azarakhsh (Lightning):* Aprox 36 (30 are being bult over th next 3 years, thats 10 a year. Not a whole lot)

_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. _

*Shafaq (Before the Dawn):* None in Service but one was ready for test flight as of 2004.

*Chengdu J-7:* Aprox 25 in service.

*F-14 Tomcat* 77 of which Aprox 3 to 10 are flyable due to lack of spare parts.

*Dassault Mirage F1:* 24 of which only a few are in service due to lack of parts.

*F-4 Phantom:* 47

*Mig-29:* 60 of which only about 10 are believed to be flyable due to lack of spare parts and the fact that several were sold to China for missile and nuclear technology in 1993.

*Norhtrop F-5:* 166 of which only 45 are flyable due to lack of spare parts.

*Shenyang J-6:* 6

*Attack*

*Su-24:* 32 of which 24 were origianaly Iraqi Airforce and not operable due to lack of spare parts. They have recieved 8 new ones in 2003 that are flyable and in service.

*Mig-27:* 24

*Su-25:* 7 former Iraqi Airforce Aircraft. Number flyable is unknown.

*Trainer*

*Beechcraft Bonanza:* 20 of which unknown are in service.

*FT-7:* 5

*Embraer EMB 312 Tucano:* 20

*Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star:* 5 of which none are believed to be flyable.

*Pilatus PC-7:* 20

*Saab Safari:* 23 built by Pakistan

Transports include numerous C-130s of which many are not believed to be flyable, Boeing 707s, An-24, An-74, Boing 747 and there are also several hundred helicopters.

*Sorry but I think the western Airforces can handle themselves just fine against the Iranians without the F-22 using Typhoons, F-15s, F-16s and Grippens combined with AWACS technology (which the Iranians do not have).*


----------



## mkloby (Sep 22, 2007)

Absolutely Adler. In a conventional engagement - Iran doesn't stand a chance. With AWACS and E-2s prowling the sky, they won't be able to mount much of an air campaign.

Ground forces - they will be completely vulnerable to AH-1/AH-64... not to mention the soldiers and Marines on the ground - Iranian ground forces do not have nearly the level of training or are they as well equipped as US forces.

Basket - don't you remember what happened to Iraq in the conventional engagements???


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 22, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Ground forces - they will be completely vulnerable to AH-1/AH-64... not to mention the soldiers and Marines on the ground



mkloby, don't think we'll be putting men on the ground anytime soon in another ME country. I could be wrong, but right now we just don't have the manpower. And Iran is three times the size of Iraq. But you're right about the air campaign; it would decimate the Iranians. 

TO


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 22, 2007)

I thought for a second there that analysis placed the Beechcraft Bonanza under the "attack" category because I missed the "trainer" title. That might actually be an upgrade for them. 

The argument clearly will not be who gets to shoot them down first, it's who gets to destroy them on the runway first.

And as much as we mock their first "domestic" aircraft, it is still quite an achievement that very few countries have ever surpassed. Who knows, maybe in 30 years with some friendly Russians or Chinese they may be making world-class fighters.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 22, 2007)

Not saying that the American air power is not good but saying you hope for the best and plan for the worst. 

Saw a pic of a Iranian MiG-29 and it was carrying K-13s...not good.

Wonder what SAMs they got.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 22, 2007)

Read somewhere on here that their air defence is worse than Syria's and Israel penetrated that with little problems so you would think there would be little problem with the Iranians either. It should be fairly easy for the Western Nations with the currently available technology. If there are F-22's in the area they should be used but in theory they won't be needed.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 22, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> mkloby, don't think we'll be putting men on the ground anytime soon in another ME country. I could be wrong, but right now we just don't have the manpower. And Iran is three times the size of Iraq. But you're right about the air campaign; it would decimate the Iranians.
> 
> TO



There is manpower to invade, engage, and decimate the Iranian military. However, occupation and the aftermath is a whole new ballgame.

The situation would not be ideal - and sustainment of such a situation would not be favorable regarding the movement of assets from elsewhere in the world... but if there was a reason for the Iran to be destroyed - it could be done.

The Marine Corps, for example, is seeking a 2:1 ratio of time at home to time deployed. Some units have this balance - many do not. The deployment cycle, in many cases, is dependent upon occupational field. Of course there are added strains on consumption of materiel and service life of equipment, but this gets more into long term sustainment of forces.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 22, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Who gets to shoot them down first, the Israelis or Americans?
> 
> resembles th YF-17 too
> 
> ,



Something can be gleaned from looking at the a/c . . . fairly low thrust, especially with two engines; look at the intakes. Not very big, are they? This suggests a low air mass-flow, hence low thrust. Probably on the order of 12,000 lbs. per engine, if that. Not sure if it has afterburnng cabability; probably does. The LERX's are '80's technology.

Also, the nose cone does not appear to be di-electric (they painted over it); hence, no radar? Probably GCI only. Not very useful.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Something can be gleaned from looking at the a/c . . . fairly low thrust, especially with two engines; look at the intakes. Not very big, are they? This suggests a low air mass-flow, hence low thrust. Probably on the order of 12,000 lbs. per engine, if that. Not sure if it has afterburnng cabability; probably does. The LERX's are '80's technology.


I'd say even less - I bet they just reverse engineered an F-5 as well as its engines. All to say that they have an indigenous fighter.


SoD Stitch said:


> Also, the nose cone does not appear to be di-electric (they painted over it); hence, no radar? Probably GCI only. Not very useful.


Great observation and very correct!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 23, 2007)

Here is video of the "new" fighter. 



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2007)

Reverse engineered F-5 - a little souped up but its that simple...

Nice clip Eric...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2007)

Aggie08 said:


> And as much as we mock their first "domestic" aircraft, it is still quite an achievement that very few countries have ever surpassed. Who knows, maybe in 30 years with some friendly Russians or Chinese they may be making world-class fighters.



Very few countries have surpassed?

Lets see:

USA
UK
Germany
France
Sweden
Argentina
Canada
Australia
Japan
China
Russia
Italy
Egypt
India
Iran
Isreal
South Africa
Peoples Republic of China (Taiwan)
Pakistan
Spain
South Korea

That is quite a few countries actually and the jets that Iran is designing now are considered 3rd Generation.

3rd Generation puts them in the same catagory as the:

Dassault Mirage F.1 
Dassault Super Étendard 
Dassault Mirage III 
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21MF/bis 'Fishbed' 
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 'Flogger' 
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 'Foxbat' 
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II 
Northrop F-5


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Reverse engineered F-5 - a little souped up but its that simple...
> 
> Nice clip Eric...



That is all that plane is. Look at it and you can completely see an F-5.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 23, 2007)

There is even an F-5 flying chase in one of the clips of that. Pretty obvious where it came from.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 23, 2007)

I froze that piece with the F5 flying chase and there are differences it appears it is a little bit larger and it definetly has larger engines . One scene baffles me though and it is of the home grown bird taxing but it has intake covers or am I missing something


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I froze that piece with the F5 flying chase and there are differences it appears it is a little bit larger and it definetly has larger engines . One scene baffles me though and it is of the home grown bird taxing but it has intake covers or am I missing something



As I said in my other post. The aircraft is about 5% bigger than the F-5. It was designed a built by reverse engineering an F-5.


----------



## Glider (Sep 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The jets that Iran is designing now are considered 3rd Generation.
> 
> 3rd Generation puts them in the same catagory as the:
> 
> ...



Of the above I would still back thee
Mirage F1 and F4 in a shoot out


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I froze that piece with the F5 flying chase and there are differences it appears it is a little bit larger and it definetly has larger engines . One scene baffles me though and it is of the home grown bird taxing but it has intake covers or am I missing something



It does certainly look like it has its engine covers on. You can also see from the clip how alike it and the F-5 really are. As Chris said it is clearly a reverse engineered F-5 and most likely has similar capabilities.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 23, 2007)

and in retrospect the Zero was a reversed engineered P35 or so they thought in 1940


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> and in retrospect the Zero was a reversed engineered P35 or so they thought in 1940



True, guess we won't know for sure what it is like until someone meets it in combat until then its all speculation...


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 23, 2007)

Point taken Adler, if not "very few" then certainly not "very many." 

Most of the aircraft in the last would have their way with this one, methinks...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> and in retrospect the Zero was a reversed engineered P35 or so they thought in 1940


And "they" were wrong - you can't compare the development of a front line fighter by world class power in 1940 to an obvious copy of an early 60s technology fighter carried out by a backwards Islamic Republic. I've worked on F-5s and even the seams in the tail canoe for engine removal is copied - the only thing obviously innovative about this aircraft is the V tail and I think it was designed that way just to be different.

Credit is due for their efforts but unless there's a direct link to Allah in the fire control system their new toy will make great targets for most who might come across it and I put my money on Israel.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Credit is due for their efforts but unless there's a direct link to Allah in the fire control system their new toy will make great targets for most who might come across it and I put my money on Israel.



I agree.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 23, 2007)

Pretty much says it all. Designed by 14th century fanatics. Maintained by believers. Flown by followers. Shot down by 20th century world citizens.

I suppose it is yet another lesson on how Iran can move forward 6 centuries.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 23, 2007)

I'm quite familiar with the F5 (CF116) and know their capabilities fairly well ...room for your ass and gallon of gas and it makes sense they would clone it as it was in the Iranian Inventory .Weren't the ones Canada supplied to Botswana all glass cockpit with a good FCS as they were originally to be used for lead in the F18 . I would agree its FCS would not be up to western standards but it would be simple to maintain. But my point is we don't know under the hood or what technology the Chinese or Russians or even the French have supplied for this bird . The worst thing to do would be take it for granted or any weapon for that matter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I'm quite familiar with the F5 (CF116) and know their capabilities fairly well ...room for your ass and gallon of gas and it makes sense they would clone it as it was in the Iranian Inventory .Weren't the ones Canada supplied to Botswana all glass cockpit with a good FCS as they were originally to be used for lead in the F18 . I would agree its FCS would not be up to western standards but it would be simple to maintain. But my point is we don't know under the hood or what technology the Chinese or Russians or even the French have supplied for this bird . The worst thing to do would be take it for granted or any weapon for that matter


Its one thing to know what not "under the hood." It's another thing when the "hood" it the size of a bread basket....

Yes, never underestimate your enemy, but you can't put 5 pounds of sh!t into a 5 pound bag, and that's what the Iranians are advertising...


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 23, 2007)

The electronic backbone of the that bird is not even ARINC 453, ARINC 653, nor MilStd 1553 equivalent. There is no way that the Iranian headshed has put together a integrated bird that can fly, detect, assimilate and track a modern day target with that thing. It's an anomoly of fanatisism that it even flies without promises of virgins written in Farsi on its fuselage.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 24, 2007)

Wow.

I'm massively underwhelmed by this thread, and not just about the Iranian's new fighter (which is a bit naff, but still a reasonable achievement).

Having worked and studied closely with several Iranians over the past couple of years, the derogatory attitude really baffles me. I found them generally hard working, intelligent rational people who were fiercely proud of their nation and angry at what they percieve as disproportionaate international criticism and internal meddling in their history and current situation by both regional powers and the superpowers.

Yes, they do have more than their fair share of religious wackos and the political ends of the spectrum tend to run to the extreeme. But you could also say the same things about America and Israel, although, fortunately, the paradigms in those countries don't tend toward martyrism.

(Curiously, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel)

Its easy to write them off, but how about some respect for a nation that, cut off from the rest of the world, has the technical ability to arm itself, even if it is only with second or third rate equipment.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 24, 2007)

Unless you police your own and stand up for the greater good that you so espouse Jabber, then, just like most stereotypes they become steeped in truth.

So how about "some respect for a nation that, cut off from the rest of the world, has the technical ability to arm itself, even if it is only with second or third rate equipment"?? Some respect you jackass? Their leadership has stated they desire the absolute destruction of the US and has funded terrorism that has cost Americans their lives. Don't you remember the 250+ US marines in Lebanon. Dumbass...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Wow.
> 
> I'm massively underwhelmed by this thread, and not just about the Iranian's new fighter (which is a bit naff, but still a reasonable achievement).
> 
> Having worked and studied closely with several Iranians over the past couple of years, the derogatory attitude really baffles me. I found them generally hard working, intelligent rational people who were fiercely proud of their nation and angry at what they percieve as disproportionaate international criticism and internal meddling in their history and current situation by both regional powers and the superpowers.


There has been nothing derogatory said here about Iranians, just an honest overview of their technical capabilities as well as a few opinions thrown in. I too have work with Iranians (In college one of my best friends was from Iran). After the recent visit by their President, it is obvious where the leadership of that country stands and I recognize this is not a reflection of the people - I read recently where there was a survey taken of young Iranians and they look more favorably towards the US than people from France.


Jabberwocky said:


> Yes, they do have more than their fair share of religious wackos and the political ends of the spectrum tend to run to the extreeme. But you could also say the same things about America and Israel, although, fortunately, the paradigms in those countries don't tend toward martyrism.


Agree....


Jabberwocky said:


> (Curiously, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel)


And they are heavily persecuted as well as Christians (One of my Iranian friends was christian)


Jabberwocky said:


> Its easy to write them off, but how about some respect for a nation that, cut off from the rest of the world, has the technical ability to arm itself, even if it is only with second or third rate equipment.


And agree as well as I mention the same in previous posts


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 25, 2007)

Well, that was much more civil than mine. Good for you FBJ. I'm still seething from that post.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 25, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Its easy to write them off, but how about some respect for a nation that, cut off from the rest of the world, has the technical ability to arm itself, even if it is only with second or third rate equipment.



*Respect?* That's not a word that I, or any civilized individual, would use to describe a country that exports and bankrolls terrorism.

And they're not exactly cut off from the rest of the world.

I could say more with regard to your post  but Matt already covered it for me.

TO


----------



## Haztoys (Sep 25, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> Wow.
> 
> Its easy to write them off, but how about some respect for a nation that, cut off from the rest of the world, has the technical ability to arm itself, even if it is only with second or third rate equipment.




Cut "off from the rest of the world"... LOL hardly... China and Russia are pooring help into Iran ..Do you realy think what you read on the news is realy whats going on ..

I wonder how much "technical ability" Iran has in this plane.. ?? I would say not much ..Its ether old school USA workings in the plane ..Or stuff from China and Russia ... And China and Russia know full well that some day they well end up fighting these mad basters in the sand just like America..China and Russia do injoy jacking up the USA's plans in the Arab World ..Just as the USA jacks up China and Russia's plans too.. Old game..

But China and Russian's know better then to give the Arabs high end weapons.. Because Like America .. Every time we arm some one ..They use it aganst us..

"Cut off from the rest of the world"... My butt...LOL..


----------



## Graeme (Sep 25, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> After the recent visit by their President



His visit to the USA made the national news over here, but oddly the televised news only concentrated on his responses to questions at a university address. The most predominately aired one, was his answer to the question of the treatment of homosexuals in Iran. "We do not have homosexuals in my country-we do not have the problem that you have here". The audience broke into laughter.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 25, 2007)

I liked the holocaust denial statements by the University President and I'mameanoldwhackjob's response. It went something like this..

Columbia President Lee Bollinger opened the program with a blistering introduction in which he lambasted Ahmadinejad for calling for the annihilation of Israel, denying the Holocaust and supporting the execution of children, and told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust as being "absurd," and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader's Holocaust denial. "Will you cease this outrage?"

After sitting through Bollinger's rebuke, Ahmadinejad rose to applause, and after a religious invocation, opened his remarks by objecting to the scolding, saying it was insulting to be spoken about that way.

Oh yeah, you bloody terrorist, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2007)

well his prayer at the beginning was for himself to usher in the 12th Imam so we Gentiles/Jews will be utterly destroyed...........the crock feels he is the Persian anti-Christ to bring in the Beast

what a fool !


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 25, 2007)

Erich said:


> well his prayer at the beginning was for himself to usher in the 12th Imam so we Gentiles/Jews will be utterly destroyed...........the crock feels he is the Persian anti-Christ to bring in the Beast
> 
> what a fool !



Yes... thats my understanding too. He is trying to hasten condidtions that bring on his version of Armagedeon.

Why do so few people know this?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 25, 2007)

The only thing that clown is going to bring upon himself is a MEF, Army combat brigades, a carrier strike group, and wings of USAF birds. Call me crazy, but I think the bastard wants exactly that.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 26, 2007)

More images.





The last story at this site states that they have 'restored' three F-14As.

Saeqeh fighter planes tested successfully in Iran


----------



## mkloby (Sep 26, 2007)

What are they the Blues now???


----------



## The Basket (Sep 26, 2007)

Dunno where a war with Iran will end up going but Ahmedinejad is a few chips short of a butty.

He is talking himself into a war which is not going to end well for him or his country.


----------



## Erich (Sep 26, 2007)

comiso :

to answer your question in brief........it is because we are stupid westerners. and many of the folk of this country are just naturally blind let alone care.

personally I would rather just have the great IAF take that silly turd right off the face of the earth so my Velodrome plans can get started.........

E `


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2007)

Graeme said:


> More images.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it just me, or are the air intakes different on these two aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2007)

They do look different...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Well, that was much more civil than mine. Good for you FBJ. I'm still seething from that post.


Thanks Matt - maybe that's why they made me a moderator!


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 26, 2007)

Erich said:


> comiso :
> 
> to answer your question in brief........it is because we are stupid westerners. and many of the folk of this country are just naturally blind let alone care.
> 
> `



if what we heard is true, that he believes that we are approaching aramegeon and it is his role in history to hasten it, why doesn't the State Department make it known? 

There is a massive difference between just another middle east dictator and a head of state that believes it's his duty to create the right conditions for the return of the 12 Imam.

is this stuff accurate? :


*
End of the World -12th Imam - Muhammad al-Mahdi*

_For those who know their Islam, the 12th Imam, al-Mahdi died 1100 years ago but is still living and in hiding and will appear before the Day of Judgement to establish peace and justice on earth.

Christian infidels will equate "Day of Judgment" with the Rapture, 666, the anti-Christ, and the end of days.
_

August 22 - End of the World -12th Imam - Muhammad al-Mahdi from Planck's Constant


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 26, 2007)

Glider said:


> Is it just me, or are the air intakes different on these two aircraft?



The two a/c appear to be different in other ways, too; look at the rear end: the stainless steel sheathing around the hot section of the engines is different. If I had to guess (and I do), I would say one (the one in the back) is a highly-modified F-5, and the other one is a new-build.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 26, 2007)

I noted the different antenna arrays.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I liked the holocaust denial statements by the University President and I'mameanoldwhackjob's response. It went something like this..
> 
> Columbia President Lee Bollinger opened the program with a blistering introduction in which he lambasted Ahmadinejad for calling for the annihilation of Israel, denying the Holocaust and supporting the execution of children, and told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."
> 
> ...



His speech to the UN went something like that as well. My favorite part was when he said that the West needs to return to the divine teachings (Islam is what he is talking about) and that will save us.


The man is a terrorist nut job and deserves to go to hell.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 26, 2007)

What's scary is he's the nominal head of a semi-modern state with the capability of inflicting substantial damage on neighboring (and maybe not so neighboring) countries. As has been said, he's steering his country toward a war with every other halfway normal country in the region; guess we better prepare to be in the Mideast for a while longer. Might want to tell the Army to start painting everything in sand.


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2007)

I didn't know if this was better suited for the Truth is Stranger than fiction thread.
Kuwait of all countries has said the following.

'"Iran is a friendly neighbouring state and we cannot accept seeing it in an embarrassing situation," KUNA reported Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak al-Sabah, the oil-rich state's first deputy premier, defence and interior minister, as saying.

If he considers Iran to be friendly, what is his definition of unfriendly?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 26, 2007)

When you are 3ft tall in an octagon with multiple 6'2" 220lb professional fighters surrounding you. Everyone is your friend.


----------

