I think S-300 plays a huge card in international affairs. Probably second to a nuclear strike capability. Funny, a defensive weapon, i know.

I honestly believe so. For example, take this: Would USA be more concerned over Iran getting S-300s or having a good stealth fighter plane? Defensively speaking, I’d go with S-300s if I was Iran. It is a lot easier to get full effectiveness of S-300 than proper integration of a stealth plane.

Now, Russia knows how popular and feared S-300 is. It has been raising arguments for last 15 years over who is possibly getting it, and who isn’t. All the more power to Russia. How much did they benefit so far simply from NOT selling it to certain countries!

Could it be possible that Russia created a DIY ( do it yourself) S-300 “kit” in form of information package, which they sold to North Korea and Iran for them to build. It would be somewhat less potent S-300 system, but within same category. (if they think they can)

Could this be what we are seeing in Iran and North Korea?

just a though.

cheers

The Israelis should demonstrate they have a working nuclear bomb by underground detonation preceded by a public announcement. All other nuclear powers; U.S., France, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan have detonate a live bomb. If Israel does possess a working nuclear bomb, then Iran would leave Israel alone. The detonation can be verified by seismograph.

but Israeli Nukes are US weapon no. Whats there to prove?

For effective deep penetration strike on 4-8 locations inside Iran with 1 to 2 wave punch during single day, They need at least 50 planes, in two waves 50 Each. Or a massive ~100 planes armada for a single surprise attack.

Which cannot be achieved by Israel, because of the distance, the need to refuel, the limited number of Israeli tankers, & the countries in between.

That was my unwritten conclusion as well. Providing my statement above holds water.

There was a limited number of LGBs used for that special purpose. Just a single span of every bridge had to be dropped to get the desired result. The Europeans were not eager to destroy that bridges, because they were the ones to give the money to repair that after the conflict. Cruise missiles could not be used, because the pilot had to decide to abort the mission, when the span lasered was not free of people. That happened several times because the Serbs learned to place people on the bridges, whenever possible.
When it comes to the Iran the most vulnerable and critical target will be attacked. The physical result is much less important than the political one.
When the deterence of fear is broken the Iran is in real political trouble. Whatever the present leadership of the Iran will do, they will run in problems with unknown consequences too. Saddam and Assad decided to do nothing serious in the end for similar reasons. 😎

Please do not confuse. Serbs were not “placing” people on bridges. Those were organised voluntary public protests against bombing of cities, and public infrastructure. Much like hundreds of open gatherings and outside concerts during air raids to show opposition to air strikes, and that show people aren’t afraid. People of Serbia, much like Serbian deffense units couldn’t shoot high enough to hit the planes, so plenty of patriotic stunts out of spite were done across Yugoslavia. It was well documented and purposefully aired all over the world to boost moral

Still, there was plenty of mistakes made on both sides.

BUT LETS NOT DIVERGE TOO FAR FROM IRAN, so thread doesn’t get closed.

Its certainly debatable if it makes sense to compare NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with Possible air strike on Iran.

How many non-stealthy Israeli planes were shot down over Syria? If Iran doesn’t want an assymetrical response from Israel, I suspect you wouldn’t see hundreds of TBMs fired. I just don’t think it’s likely to see an all out response, to a limited strike, as the risks are too high for all parties.

Agree, except, over Syria it is unlikely that it would be same over Iran today.

All out response won’t work for ANYONE in this region. Including USA.

Pretty much, the focus is what could happen in blitzkrieg type 1-2 punch by Israel. If possible at all.

S-200 system is a long range-high altitude system, missiles are carrying extremely large warheads. But maneuverability of those gigantic missiles is very modest. Well trained fighter pilot is going to outmaneuver easily. But before going to perform high G evasive maneuver, pilot is going to drop additional tanks, and heavy armament like GBU-28…

So even a miss with S-200 could be effective in try to disable ‘1-2 strikes’ scenario.

S-200 is not a mobile system. Any attacker will try to hit S-200 locations form long distance using, long range weapons…

agree 100%

Now, you need to shot those systems out, or at least disable them so 1-2 strike mission can get through with all the weapons, right?

How exactly would Israel do this with a modest fleet and quick secret strike. I believe crossing over and accomplishing all those tasks requires 1999 Serbia category mission scaled down only time wise to 1-2 waves. Even so, i wouldn’t advise it.

For effective deep penetration strike on 4-8 locations inside Iran with 1 to 2 wave punch during single day, They need at least 50 planes, in two waves 50 Each. Or a massive ~100 planes armada for a single surprise attack.

considering none are stealthy, There would be many at least a 10 shot down. Not to mention retaliatory direct, and “asymmetric” strike by Iran.

If what i said above is true, would this be good enough for Israel to try?

The given radius of action for the S-200 is for something like an U-2/AWACS/airliner without EW-suit. At low level the S-200 is useless. 😎

yes but at low level they have Tor-M1 systems, and plenty of them.
If SA-2s and SA-6, SA-3s could down western aircraft in 1999, why S-200 would be any less dangerous! believe it was SA-3 system that saw and hit F-117 despite all the countermeasures.
S-200 is way more dangerous, and long range radars are only going to help.