If Australia were to decide to go alone in liberating Iran, would it be possible? Let's assume that Australia can use bases in Iraq. Let's say that the Americans don't do anything more than get out of Australia's way when Australia starts sending its planes into Iraqi bases. The Americans prevent Maliki from interfering.

Does Australia have the ability to get its planes into Iraq? I assume that our planes are better than whatever the Iranians have, so we would have air superiority. Would our ground forces be able to get to Tehran with that air cover? Would it require mass defection of the Iranian military or does the Australian Army have what is required to get through Iranian defences regardless?

I know it's not going to happen, I just want some idea of what force Australia is able to project if it puts its mind to it. You can also assume that Australia does not need to defend Australia throughout this, as it is relying on ANZUS to deter anyone silly enough to try crossing our moat.

Unless the Americans sanitized both the Iranian air force and air defences for us first we could not expect to have control of the air. While our aircraft may on average be better than those possessed by the Iranian's our aircraft are also getting long in the tooth and lack the stealth required to penetrate Iranian airspace. We would take unacceptable casualties and still not be successful.

If our army had no other commitments and the Reserves were also mobilised and sent to Iraq our ground forces would make no more than a pin-prick in the Iranian ground forces. We would get nowhere.

Have a look at the respective ORBATs of the two countries. Australia's forces are largely designed to defend Oz across the air-sea gap (the old legacy DOA doctrine) with a limited expeditionary capability. Iran's forces are structured to defend Iran against a land invasion (consider the Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988).

Cheers.

Why is stealth required to penetrate Iranian air space?  People have been using non-stealth for a very long time. Why did that suddenly become a necessity? I thought that air battles were normally won by whoever had the best air-to-air missles? Wouldn't that be us by far? Our planes have been upgraded. Iran's haven't been upgraded for 27 years.

 

Also, what is preventing the entire Australian Army from being expeditionary? Australia sent a lot of troops to Vietnam. Even conscripts. Ignoring the use of conscripts, what changes are required to be able to project all of our army and how long would that transformation take?

 

I looked up the OOB:

 

"http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/oob.html"

 

Iran has slightly more planes numerically than us, and it has roughly 10 times the number of troops that we have. Coalition forces achieved over 10:1 kill ratio in Iraq, didn't they? And Iran has the disadvantage of having to deploy those troops all over the country, whereas our troops can be concentrated. Iran also has the disadvantage that their troops are conscript. It also has the disadvantage that their troops would be fighting for a dictator. Experience in Iraq is that many/most troops deserted at the first opportunity. The Iranian dictatorship may well find that the Iranian soldiers actually defect rather than desert. We don't know that in advance. It is only by defecting that they would truly be fighting for their country. Although we don't know what sort of logic Iranian soldiers follow. We do know that as conscripts they are a reflection of the general population, and we also know that the Iranian dictatorship doesn't dare allow free and fair elections for the general population.

 

AdvanceAustralia, thanks for your detailed reply.

 

"With only these small numbers and no stealth any attempt to start bombing Iran would cause unacceptable casualties."

 

The Iraqis managed to down 0 planes. The Afghans 0. The Serbs 1 or 3 or something. What do the Iranians have that these other guys don't have? If they're not better than the Serbs, I suspect we can withstain a loss of 3 aircraft. Alternatively, what do we need to buy from the US prior to the war? Don't mention things that are not for sale, like Stealth Bombers. How quickly can we get the air force required to be able to only sustain "acceptable casualties"?

 

"The resulting attrition would leave insufficient aircraft to support our ground troops."

 

Ok. Well we definitely don't want that. That wasn't what I had in mind. What I had in mind was no-one being able to get near our troops because we could blast them from the air. What do we need to do to get into that position?

 

"The Coalition kill ratio in Iraq is not relevant. Coalition ground forces were not outnumbered 10:1 as we would be in Iran. Our doctrine calls for a positive ratio of 3:1 when assaulting dug in or well protected troops."

 

In Iraq the coalition was outnumbered about 5:1. I think our doctrine has been shown to be provably inflated.

 

"We simply wouldn't attack 10 times our number, dug in or not."

 

I want to know what would happen if we did anyway.

 

"The Iranians would not have to spread all their ground forces across Iran - if we concentrated our army and crossed the border you can bet the Iranians would very quickly concentrate overwhelming force against us."

 

Doesn't it take time for them to move their troops to where our troops are? Can't we blast them when they're moving? Can't we bomb the roads that they would travel on? And their fuel supplies.

 

"Have another look at your OOB. Iran has not 10 but 20 times the number of tanks we have and although the Abrams (of which we only have 59, not 71) are qualitatively superior to Iranian tanks they would not make up for our numerical inferiority."

 

Again, I don't think the Iraqis managed to kill a single tank with their tanks. Aren't Iranian tanks simply target practice for our air force? Assuming they've even got the fuel for them. Or even in working order.

 

"You could make a reasonable case for the entire Australian Army, dug in and supported by the  RAAF, being able to defend against an attack by the Iranian Army (ala Kapyong or Long Tan) but there is no way we could successfully carry out an offensive against Iran."

 

Ok, how about a lesser goal of making a beeline to Iranian Kurdistan, digging in, defending against the Iranian attack, and signing up pro-freedom Iranian Kurds? I think most Iranian Kurds will already be trained due to the compulsory military service. We can buy arms for them in advance of the invasion.

 

"I doubt very much that if a numerically inferior force of Australians crossed the border the Iranian conscripts would go Woopee! and revolt against the regime, much less begin defecting. Remember, they are Iranians first and foremost and their homeland is being invaded."

 

We heard exactly the same thing from the Taliban and from Saddam. After we actually got an opportunity to ask the people, it turned out that 88% of Afghans welcomed the invasion and 50% of Iraqis. It is difficult to predict whether the Iranians are going to be dumber than both the Afghans and Iraqis, but I would expect them to actually be the smartest. One data point from Iran says 58%:

 

"http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007811215950.asp"

 

But we have no way of knowing the accuracy of that. The Kurds in Iraq are well above the 50% figure for Iraq overall. The Iranian Kurds will hopefully be so as well, especially when we tell them we will try to help them get the same thing that the Iraqi Kurds got (autonomy).

 

"The Revolutionary Guard would have something to say about that and there are no doubts about their motivation."

 

They had the same thing in Iraq.

 

"I've worked with a handful of Iranians in the Middle East. While they do not like the regime because of the damage its dogmatism has done to Iran's economic potential and the lack of opportunity it affords Iran's class of well-educated younger generation they do not like the thought of the US et al imposing economic sanctions on Iran."

 

Nor would I. If Australia was under a dictator, I'd want to be liberated, not have my standard of living lowered as if I had done something wrong.

 

"I can't imagine they'd enjoy being invaded either."

 

I would. Wouldn't you? 88% of Afghans would.

 

"kerravon, as much as I like the idea that Australia could have the forces to invade a country like Iran we simply don't"

 

Even if we don't now, what would be required so that we could? Also, you should take into account that our troops are volunteers while the Iranians are conscripts. I've been told that when conscript armies are being bombed and have no way to fight back, they do what conscript armies all over the world do - throw down their weapons and go home. Also take into account that as conscripts, they are reflections of the general population - ie 58% of them probably want an external invasion. If I were one of those, I wouldn't be shooting Australians. I'd be looking for an opportunity to shoot the 42% around me, if I could identify them.

 

"and we won't be doing so any time soon."

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen. I just want to know whether it is possible for Australia to achieve. We have 30% of Iran's population and a lot of things on our side, such as being able to buy US-made equipment.

 

Remember in all this that I'm only talking about defeating Iran's fielded forces to prevent THEM from oppressing the Iranian people. There is no requirement for US to oppress the Iranian people. That's the huge difference between a war of liberation and a war of conquest. I think our doctrine needs to be updated with this new concept. Afghanistan and Iraq have shown examples of that. Afghanistan was toppled in 7 weeks with about 200 troops and I think zero or one casualties.

 

The original source of that survey (58%) is now available. It wasn't available when the article was first posted. Here it is:

 

"http://www.cfpdusa.org/news.aspx?type=Analysis&id=22"

 

We would take unacceptable casualties and the attack would fail.












I don't know enough about the Iranian Kurds or their whereabouts to comment.

AdvanceAustralia, " IIRC, the US utilised stealth aircraft to degrade the radar and control elements of the Iraqi, Serbian and Afghan air defences, allowing conventional aircraft to destroy the missiles and launchers. We would need the same. While F22s are not for sale we might be able to talk the US into selling us some F117s. Alternatively, it is my understanding that in the 1990s the US offered Australia and the UK some of those B1s sitting out in the desert. To procure either of these, make the necessary modifications and conduct training would take a couple of years."

 

Ok, it sounds like these are not normally sold. I heard that the US didn't want anyone else to have stealth technology. Isn't there something that can be used that is actually sold?

 

"By then Iran will have nukes."

 

Let's take the hypothetical that Iran is still 10 years away from developing nukes. I just want to know whether it is within our national capability of building up a decent conventional force so that we would have the ability to do these things ourselves. There was another thread about Canada becoming a superpower. I'm not interested in being a superpower - just sufficient arms to take on a country like Iran.

 

AA:"The Coalition kill ratio in Iraq is not relevant. Coalition ground forces were not outnumbered 10:1 as we would be in Iran. Our doctrine calls for a positive ratio of 3:1 when assaulting dug in or well protected troops."

KA:"In Iraq the coalition was outnumbered about 5:1. I think our doctrine has been shown to be provably inflated."

"Provided we are as well equipped as the US forces."

 

Sure. So what are we lacking? Also, that 5:1 was a complete whitewash. The US could presumably have done it even if it was a 30:1 ratio. In Afghanistan it was a 200:1 ratio.

 

AA:"We simply wouldn't attack 10 times our number, dug in or not."

AA:"We would take unacceptable casualties and the attack would fail."

 

Ok, what changes need to be made so that we can attack 10 times our number of Iranians without taking unacceptable casualties and failing?

AA:"The Iranians would not have to spread all their ground forces across Iran - if we concentrated our army and crossed the border you can bet the Iranians would very quickly concentrate overwhelming force against us."

KA:"Doesn't it take time for them to move their troops to where our troops are? Can't we blast them when they're moving? Can't we bomb the roads that they would travel on? And their fuel supplies."

AA:"Yes, we can try but we would need a far larger air force than we have now. To increase the size of the RAAF would take years"

 

Just how big an air force is required in order to bomb roads? Isn't 80 aircraft over Iran overkill already? If not, how many do we require? Also, we can carry out the bombing before our troops cross, like GWI instead of GWII. Or a combination of the two. Cross the border somewhere that we're not interested in, see how the Iranians react. If they start defecting, we don't bother destroying their military. If they don't defect, then we spend the next 3 months bombing them.

 

KA:"Again, I don't think the Iraqis managed to kill a single tank with their tanks. Aren't Iranian tanks simply target practice for our air force? Assuming they've even got the fuel for them. Or even in working order."

"Again, our air force would need to be significantly larger than it is now."

 

Specifically?

 

KA:"I would (want to be liberated). Wouldn't you? 88% of Afghans would."

AA:"They would need to be confident we were going to win before they supported us."

 

On the contrary, they have attempted to rise up a couple of times even without a single foreign troop in support of them. They failed of course. But all indications are that if we take away the regime's helicopters, they will rise up so fast that the place will be liberated in days. I have spoken to many people who insist that the Iranians must rise up themselves and no-one deserves a war of liberation. I think that's extremely cruel myself. If others expect them to take a risk with no foreign backing, then what is the minimum we need to bring to the table to allow them to rise up? The Iraqi Kurds were protected from the air after they rose up. I doubt that the US had 80 planes flying over Iraqi Kurdistan to prevent Saddam from recapturing the place.

 

"To cut a long story short, we would need to significantly increase the size and firepower of both our army and air force."

 

You haven't explained why we need a larger army. The problems you have outlined so far are to do with the air force.

 

"Even if the US sold us a lot of existing equipment this expansion would still take time."

 

How long?

 

"Also, given the current manning problems the ADF has, you would probably have to introduce conscription or call up many ex-servicemen with recent experience. That would cause you some serious political problems."

 

Why does the ADF have manning problems but the US military doesn't? Can we hire Gurkhas to make up the shortfall? Wouldn't that actually be cheaper? Would increased pay for the ADF solve the manning problem? How about if we assume that 90% of Australia is in favour of ending state-slavery in Iran (as they should be!!!) and it has bipartisan support. What can we do?

 

No....first of all you can't get the air superiority.They can bomb any airbase you can use...and they have an airforce which Austrailian air force can not take out.
Their land army is much stronger than OZs
Aussies has the advantage on navy though
Iran is a large country and has a strong army.If both countries were sharing borders I'd bet on Iran

My question is "what do we need to purchase from the US (that is available for sale) in order to get air superiority/supremacy?". Australia doesn't have the ability to protect the Iraqi air bases from Iran's 30 year old planes? Why is their land army stronger? Don't we have better equipment and air cover? If not, what do we need to get, especially on the latter? Iraq's military was a complete turkey-shoot. Iran can't be THAT much better than Iraq, given that Iran failed to defeat Iraq last time round.

 

Kerravon, Australia's force projection ability over that distance is extremely limited. As others have said, (I think DB and GF) that East Timor in 1999 was about as far as we could go, and caused a bit of a shake-up, hence the amphibs, and C17's and such. The fact is, that yes, most of our equipment is better, but it means nothing as it is on the other size of the word, and we have extremely limited means of getting it there, at present,  the Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora is all, I think, and the C17s.

 

Basically we just do not, and will not ever have the ability to project any meaningful combat power that distance unilaterally. It simply will not possible. And thats not even taking into account the politics.

Ok, what is required to move our stuff from here to Iraq? Can't we use commercial freighters to get it there? Assume that we do it before declaring war on Iran and that Iran will not decide to preemptively declare war on us and have the ANZUS treaty invoked.

Why do you say it is not possible? Can't we just buy whatever is normally used to ship stuff? Does that stuff cost more than 10% of our GDP? If not, we should technically have the ability to do it, don't we? What percentage of GDP did WWII set us back?