Iran isnt exactly a paradise with the current government being run by a theocracy but compared to what some of those wackos are doing in Iraq and Syria in the name of religion it almost looks like it.

I don't think Iraq has cruise missiles and their F-16s are more air defense than offense.

NATO only needs to find out where Iran places the S-300 to know what they will be used for. If they put them on the boarder with Iraq, then they're fending off a western approaching threat. However, if they put them around say a nuclear facility, then you kind of have to know what they're up to.

could pose a threat to everyone in the region including Iran.

You mean ISIS attack Iran using Syrian military jets, crossing Iraqi airspace, now patrolled by Iraqi F-16s? I don't think that's even a consideration first of all. And second, which airplane does the Syrian air force fly with the strategic range to strike targets near Tehran and return? None.

I find it far more plausible that the S-300 purchase is to counter an Israeli or U.S. led strike group or cruise missile attack out to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Both of which, have the capability and capacity to deliver such a strike.

That despite all the subterfuge Iran hasn't attacked any country since the fall of the Shah. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, (with Western backing,) attacked them.

implementing effective air defense systems. The only practical objection - 'you're making it harder for us to penetrate your airspace with surveillance and/or combat aircraft!' - provides the very reason for the need.

if the region really needs a dominant Saudi Arabia.

You get too close and your liable to be shot down.
I was so embarrassed when Russia got us cold
without an alibi.
What goes around comes around.

it will take a lot more than that to defend Iranian airspace.

that he knows are terrorist states. When will NATO and the USA take out Putin.

Never. This is the BIG BEAR. This is the nuclear armed big bear. You are calling for a nuclear war. And don't even think of black ops against the Russians.

Wolf

I bet the collection of conspiracy-minded nut jobs on Russian state TV repeat that meme over and over, but it's false. The U.S. would probably prefer that Putin be out of power, but thinking that the U.S. would assassinate him is really silly.

Putin is not "the bear." He's a homophobic mafia Don who rules over his collection of corrupt, ass-kissing loyalists.

& on DU

Why are you so upset about defensive weapons?

Perhaps you work for a US supplier of defensive missiles?

Do you think it should be illegal for a country to defend itself?

And finally, do you know of some nefarious plans the US and/or Israel have against Iran that the rest of us don't know about? We only know Hillary wants to bomb them, we don't know she actually has any concrete plans.

You also may need to realize that the United States is the world's largest arms supplier and that most of the weapons now used by all sides in the Middle East are of American manufacture. So why do you think we have the moral high ground there or anywhere for that matter?

If any one starts a war it will be us or Israel

Iran is a 'terrorist state?' Huh. I guess their soldiers on the ground in Iraq fighting Daesh are... upset that they are now the top terrorists in the neighborhood?

Nothing a terrorist state likes more than air defense. 'Cuz... you can, like, terrorize military aircraft that penetrate their airspace!

And that Putin - what a bastard. We are the top arms supplier in the world - that loser Putin will never catch up. He'll never get anywhere with the Saudis, we're all over that. And talk about your 'terrorist state!' Loads of Saudi money has funded Sunni terrorism all over the world, not to mention that almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis (definitely hard to top that one.) And Egypt? Thank goodness their little... not-quit-a-coup (or we'd have to stop selling them arms) put an end to that whole 1 year democracy experiment. Iranian internal oppression's got nothing on Egypt - hundreds sentenced to death at a time, imprisonment of dissidents of all varieties, even torturing and killing an Italian kid for... well, who cares, really?

Yep - that Putin is a real loser.

Protecting the world from American and Israeli warmongers.

What's next? Praise for the heroic Kim Jong Un? Remember what Iran did to their protesters? The country is run by religious nutcases.

They are protecting themselves from known warmongers.

These are defensive weapons. If we and Israel don't like it, then maybe we should stay the fuck out of their airspace.

When Egypt attack the Israeli positions on the Suez Canal. The Egyptian ground forces stayed within the cover of their AA missiles and advanced under that cover. The Egyptians made a mistake when in an effort to relieve pressure off Syrian forces attacked Israel from the North, went beyond their AA cover and thus came under the full power of the Israeli Air Force.

Both Air Planes Electronics and missile electronics have improved immensely since 1973. At least one Air Force General has said he foresee the Air Force being obsolete by 2040 on the ground AA missile defense will be so good that the only way to attack from the Air will be via one way missiles (he was an advocated of dropping the F-122 and F-35 fighter programs in favor of upgrading SU-27 to replace the F-15s, on the grounds the F-15 are getting to old to be upgraded and the SU-27 is as good as the F-15 from a flying point of view, combined with modern American electronics the resulting plane would be the best in the world).

Please note, the F-15 is a very old plane, first flown in 1972. The F-15 in US service have a lot of flight time and it is showing up in metal fatigue. The design of the F-15 is NOT a problem, the electronics of the F-15 is NOT the problem, it is the actual metal of the plane given their age. The electronics in the F-15 of today makes then vastly superior to the F-15 of 1972. The Su-27 is as good as the F-15 but being newer has less issues with Metal Fatigue, thus a good plane to for the US to fly till missiles replace manned planes sometime after 2030.

Anyway, modern AA defense CAN make an area to hot for Planes. By the 1970s, AA defenses in Europe had become so sophisticated that if a major war broke out, all planes would have been flying no higher than 1000 feet (and the preferred height was below 600 feet) to minimized exposure to radar and AA defenses controlled by Radar. In the Yom Kipper war, until the Egyptian Army outran their AA coverage, this is what the Israeli Air Force had to do, fly low to avoid the AA missiles, thus exposing themselves to ground base AA gun fire (Which ended up being the #1 cause of Aircraft losses by Israel during the Yom Kipper War).

The S-300 (NATO SA-10) series of AA weapons has a coverage area of 120 miles and is a mobile system, i.e. one set can shut down and move forward, while a second set provides AA Cover, then the First one sets itself up as the second moves forward. The two units can then leap frog each other giving constant air cover to ground forces on the offensive. The Radar of the latest S-300 has a range of 200 miles and a set up time of Five Minutes (the first S-300s of 1989 took over an hour to set up)

Just pointing out that these units can be used offensively by providing AA cover for an Army on the offensive, They can also be used defensively, and even in that role it is best to turn them off after a few hours (or less time, these units can turn themselves off and be on the march to their next site within two minutes of being ordered to do so) and move the whole unit thus the other side losing contact with the AA unit and unable to launch an attack on the AA unit.

The S-300 (NATO SA-10) is design to cover a hole Army area of activity. While its missiles are restricted to about 120 miles, its radar can cover 200 miles (and can engage targets up to 88,000 feet). Furthermore it is part of an integrated AA system, so the Radar of one S-300 Battery can guide the Missiles from another battery 100 miles away (40 miles within the same battery of middiles). The S-300 is also integrated with the BUK system (NATO SA-11). The BUK system only has a range of 26 miles and 15 miles high (about 50,000 feet), but it is intended to use at Divisional level and is a complete AA missile system, complete with its own radar and missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)

Just a comment that the S-300 HAS OFFENSIVE CAPABILITY and Russian tactics calls for use of that Capability.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-purchase-sukhoi-30-fighter-jets-russia-095807470.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

Now the article states the SU-30 is a long range two crew man "Interceptor", unlike the SU-27 which is an "Air Superiority fighter". In the Soviet now Russian system, "Interceptors" are design to operate off paved runways but go long distances to intercept enemy aircraft entering Soviet and now Russian Air Space. "Air Superiority Fighters" are designed to operate off grass fields and engage targets over the battlefield to get and obtain air superiority during any ground action. Thus "Air Superiority Fighters" do not have the range of "Interceptors" but tend to have heavier duty undercarriages and are NOT intended to be in the air as long as the "Interceptors".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27

Now, the difference between these two types of aircraft tends to be very small, for both (and the SU-34) are design to fight other fighters. The Max take off weight of the SU-27 is 30,000 KG, the SU-30 is 34,500 KG and the SU-34 45,100 KG.

As can be expected the SU-34 is the "slowest" at only Mach 1.8, the Interceptor SU-34 is the fastest (its heavier weight off set by lighter undercarriage thus most of its extra weight is extra fuel) at Mach 2.35. The Su-27 is in between at 2.0 Mach max speed.

We also have a third version of the SU-27, the SU-34, unlike the SU-30, which has a two man in tandem (one behind the other), the SU-34 has the two crewman side by side in an enlarge cockpit. The SU-30 is a tactical bomber with fighter capacity. It has the longest range and the largest bomb carrying capacity of all of the versions of the SU-27:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

All three aircraft can do all three jobs. intercept, fight other fighters and drop precision bombs, but each is geared to do one of those jobs best. Iran seems to have wanted an interceptor NOT an Air Superiority fighter or a precision bomber. Thus implies a more defensive role for the plane

The F -35 is so bug-ridden, incapable of carrying functioning weapons, (which still have not been built or tested), , and so many years behind schedule that from a practical sense, the S-300 design and components will have failed due to old age. There is almost no chance that one of our $330,000,000 prescioussssssh new toys will ever be attacked by such a missile.

What really gets me is how they keep building them under the old specs, with multiple "Blocks" that they know are buggy, failed, and inoperable, then once built, they immediately take them down for major (expensive) overhauls to try to replace those Blocks out on the field. Any one of these existing Blocks, both software and hardware render the plane useless and non functional. But by building them anyway, they get performance bonuses.

Now that is a way to run a military, eh?