Really, Iran would be better to invest in advance Russian SAM’s. That said, Iraq had some of the best intergraded SAM Networks at that time. Yet, the US and its Allies ran over it like a freight train…………:diablo:

True. SAMs are a cost/effective investment. But, best for air-defense is a well integrated and coordinated SAM/fighter duo.

As for the Iraqi defenses in 1991: They had nothing but old and compromised complexes like SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6. No modern SAMs like the S-300 (SA-10), BUK (SA-11), S-300V (SA-12) was sold to them. Having said that, even older SAMs are not to be underestimated. They still can do some damage. During operation Desert Storm, the Iraqis managed to shoot down many of the latest F-14,15,16, 18 and Tornados with their elderly SA-2 and 3s.

Iran’s current SAM network is not much better than Iraq’s back in 1991. The only modern SAM they have is the recently acquired TOR (SA-15) which is only a short-range system.

This and never was a discussion about chronology.

Guess who started with the chronology. Your own post:

Funny history tells a different story- or maybe you missed thee cold war.

:rolleyes:

yes there are cruise missiles in the US Nuclear detterent, but they are in increasingly small numbers and in order to have intercontinental capability they are carried and luanched by very expensive and complex bombers.

The US has and is still considering civilian design Boeing airliners as cruise missile launchers to replace the 50 year old B-52s:rolleyes:

Development of cruise missiles capable of penetrating well defended air space is a more technically challenging task

Yet during operation Iraqi Freedom, a lowly/elderly/unworthy SILKWORM cruise missile penetrated the best US air defenses and crashed into a mall in Kuwait city:rolleyes: I guess the allied air defenses were too busy shooting down their own aircraft :rolleyes:

BTW, Regulus was replaced by ICBMS, or have you never heard of Polaris?

I call them SLBMs :rolleyes:

Just answered you own question question, when was it retired? what was it replaced with- oh yes thats right ICBMs. Incidently what was it launched from- thats right a submarine, which had to be designed built and developed.:rolleyes:

You missed my point.

I am saying chronologicaly:

-Regulus came before ICBMs

-V1 before V2

-Cruise missile before ICBM

…and BTW, cruise missiles are still in the US nuclear arsenal. ICBMs have not replaced the cruise missiles.

:rolleyes:

1) Yes you did qoute out of context.:mad:

2) I was pointing out that you were qouting out of context and explaining the context the comment was actually posted in. As a newbie you need to learn to stop making ridiculous comments about points.:mad:

Disappointing…

Up until recently a basic developed Scud could penetrate pretty much any defence system- as was shown by Gulf War 1 ……Secondly for cruise missiles to have a truly intercontinental …..

Yes, but the SCUD is not an ICBM. Since you are talking about a cruise missile with intercontinental capability, you should find a better example to illustrate your point.

Secondly for cruise missiles to have a truly intercontinental capability they have to be tied either to warships or aircraft, both off which also have to be designed, developed and built

…or simply, acquired.

Sorry but it appears that you missed the part where the RAF was able to to achieve significant results in intercepting V1’s where as the V2’s were unstoppable. Thats why I mentioned the cold war.:rolleyes:

No, I am well aware of what (and what not) the RAF and British AAA accomplished:p

I never disagreed with the part of your previous post where you mentioned that ballistic missiles are more difficult to intercept.

What I don’t agree with you is in your previous post where you are implying that ballistic missiles where easier to develop and came first.
This part:

Cruise missiles are easier to develop are they? Funny history tells a different story- or maybe you missed thee cold war

That’s why I brought up the V-rockets.

Thanks.

What happened to that last Su-24?

Hi
and now new pictures .one for SU-22M3 and the others for SU-24 with SU-22M3 from 2001 army show.

I believe they are all Su-22.

AFAIK, The Iraqis did not have any Su-24s in 2001

[QUOTE=Otaku;1126880]

Hi UAZ, any word on the ramjet R-77M?:cool:

Nothing new. We may see something at the MAKS 2007 show in August.