I'd be inclined to think that the British tanks would probably also lead to British IFVs (FV510 Warriors, probably) but Iran would want to make their own APCs, which they very much have the capability to do on their own, either through a licensed design or one of their own. For artillery, their stuff here was mostly pretty old and they would want good stuff for this - conventional wisdom would say American or British artillery guns, but I'd also say this might be where Gerald Bull ends up. G5s and G6s for Iran instead of (or perhaps purchased from) South Africa?
This is pretty good, but I could see them ordering more Tomcats instead of the Eagle. It had already won the initial evaluation against the Eagle and it would make more sense to buy the type already in use. Vipers forming the backbone of their fighter fleet and replacing the F-5, and the Shah did have an order of F-18s for maritime strike so we're good here. Good thinking with the Tornado because retiring the Phantom leaves a gap in their strike capabilities that the F-14 and F-16 can't fill for a couple more years. Maybe with Iranian funding a larger variant with bigger engines and longer range would be developed, giving the RAF the longer range strike capability they originally desired. I could see the Hornets eventually being replaced by more advanced Vipers, as they do the same job cheaper and have a larger supply chain. The E-3 could be replaced by a version of the Phalcon, and as far as tankers go, the 747 was way more capable in every regard compared to the 707 and I could see them lasting to this day. Maybe the proposed KC-33A based on the 747-400 gets ordered this time around.
I don't know if they would order that many Hornets if they were only being used for Maritime strike duties, particularly if they have aircraft carriers and long-range strike aircraft to do that job as well. I only agreed with the Eagles because the OP mentioned them, I wouldn't bother with them when you have the Tomcat either. I'm thinking that the Iranian Tornados would use the ADV airframe and CFTs to give it the range demanded, and more powerful engines to allow it faster speed without the afterburners.
I don't see Israel selling the Phalcon to Iran, even in this world, unless the problems with the Palestinians have been fully solved for good, and the Iranian E-3s would only be 25 years old now and probably well maintained, my comment was based on Iran not wanting to maintain aging 707 airframes. 747 tankers do have considerably greater range and payload, but also require rather bigger runways and physically larger infrastructure, which is why I figured a combination of them at ones based on 767s or A330s.
With forces like this, I think Iran would definitely be a first responder in situations like Somalia, Rawanda, Afghanistan, and perhaps Ethiopia. With a friendly power policing the Middle East and Africa, it would allow America to focus on more internal issues. This pivot inward could butterfly away the Gulf Wars, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America in a better position politically and economically.
I said before that I think the Gulf Wars would all be butterflied by this. Saddam was a lunatic but not an idiot, and against this Iran he'd get stomped in short order and he'd know it. Thus, he doesn't have the vast military he did IOTL and would be focused on what Iran was doing, so he'd never have the reason to go after Kuwait. Afghanistan is trickier, as Tehran trying to influence Kabul's actions in this world would probably make an American response MORE likely, not less, because Iran in this world is firmly on the side of the West and Moscow would not want Afghanistan on the side of the West, which would probably mean greater support for Najibullah. Whether Osama bin Laden would get into the middle of this is an open question - the fact that the Russians would be in Afghanistan and the fact that Pakistan, which at the time was ruled by Zia ul-Haq (something of an Islamist) would be by and large out in the cold - not needed by the West or East and not needed by either.
I can see Iran getting involved in Somalia and Afghanistan, but Rwanda is highly unlikely (though not impossible if Iran is looking to score points with the West....) and Ethiopia more so. The Shah's dreams included the making of Tehran into a major center between East and West and his hopes of an alliance of southern Asia is possible, in fact I'd say by the late 1980s very possible and feasible. Iran and India could end up working a lot with each other, and I can see this extending to the countries ringing the Indian Ocean from Australia all the way around to South Africa. India, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Kenya, and South Africa by the 1990s, the last three as their economies and political situations change to the point where they can be involved.
I agree that ordering Eagle makes no sense if you allready have Tomcat.
I mentioned that above.
About Tornado, I doubt that Iran would have ordered them, if Shah wanted, he could order F-111 ( a much better plane for the role ) but he didn't...
He bought the 747 tankers to give his forces a long reach, and I am sure his armed forces can see the problem relying on tankers can cause, which is why I proposed the use of the Tornado. The F-111 would be long out of production by the early to mid 1980s when these would be ordered, whereas new Tornados would be a question of cutting the check in the right amount.
Phantoms will have to due for Air-to-Ground role until replaced with Hornets in 80s and 90s... But I even think that Phantoms ( with good modernisation ) will last until early 2000s... So no Hornets beyond maritime strike role.
With a big stack of F-16s on hand I would imagine the Phantoms will be retired as part of the drawdown at the end of the Cold War.
)
