114 replies to this topic

[and then]

Yamato, on 21 March 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

It's also a joke that Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities.  After all of these years of media embarrassments, it still amazes me how long such BS can be spread around in the media and repeated ad nauseum till it's taken seriously by the politicians, punditry, and people who don't have a clue what they're talking about as usual.

Israel will need to takeoff and land in Iraq if they want to strike Iran, and if the IDF wants to do meaningful damage to Iran's nuclear facilities they'll need to rent the B-52 bombers they're not trained to operate.   And good luck surviving Iran's air defenses flying B-52s deep into their airspace.  Face it.  Israel attacking Iran is kool aid.  It is nonsense.  It is par for the course that the ignorant masses chew.  Only the US is capable of damaging Iran's nuclear facilities and since we all bow down to lick the dirty feet of Israel it won't surprise me one bit if our shills actually do.

The Iranians seem to be less sure of that than the all wise and seeing among us here at UM.  They're yelling at everyone who'll listen that they'll close the strights and bomb Israel and America if we dare attack.  Somethings got them a trifle worried and I certainly don't think it's OBY's bluster.

[DieChecker]

I remember back in the Reagan days when the US bombed Libya. The fighter-bombers had to fly down around Spain from England and return the same way.

I think perhaps Yamato does not know the attack range of the Israeli fighter-bombers?

I've seen articles that said the Israeli's have upgraded some of their planes (with external tanks?) to have a 1500 mile range. And certainly they could use Tankers and even if the IAF does not have tankers, the US would certainly loan them some.

[and then]

DieChecker, on 21 March 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I remember back in the Reagan days when the US bombed Libya. The fighter-bombers had to fly down around Spain from England and return the same way.

I think perhaps Yamato does not know the attack range of the Israeli fighter-bombers?

I've seen articles that said the Israeli's have upgraded some of their planes (with external tanks?) to have a 1500 mile range. And certainly they could use Tankers and even if the IAF does not have tankers, the US would certainly loan them some.

Not sure with Yam.  I think sometimes he argues just to argue...whatever.  But, yes, the Israeli's have already staged a couple of such missions with over one hundred aircraft involved and in flight tanking...no landings required.  As an aside, B-2s fly from a base in Missouri to the Europe or the ME for missions.  Tank on the way and back routinely.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 21 March 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I remember back in the Reagan days when the US bombed Libya. The fighter-bombers had to fly down around Spain from England and return the same way.

I think perhaps Yamato does not know the attack range of the Israeli fighter-bombers?

I've seen articles that said the Israeli's have upgraded some of their planes (with external tanks?) to have a 1500 mile range. And certainly they could use Tankers and even if the IAF does not have tankers, the US would certainly loan them some.

I think the problem is that I do know their combat radii, but the elephant in the room nobody's addressing is they're supposed to be carrying what armament?  What are they going to strike the nuclear facilities protected by mountains and accomplish, other than kicking some dirt around, rallying the entire nation of Iran against them (if not the entire Muslim world) and potentially starting World War III?   The day they strap a 30,000 lb bunker buster onto the centerline of an F-15 is the day pigs fly.  Dream on.

As for those 1500 mi. articles, let's see them.

[Yamato]

and then, on 21 March 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Not sure with Yam.  I think sometimes he argues just to argue...whatever.  But, yes, the Israeli's have already staged a couple of such missions with over one hundred aircraft involved and in flight tanking...no landings required.  As an aside, B-2s fly from a base in Missouri to the Europe or the ME for missions.  Tank on the way and back routinely.

Even granted airborne refueling which someone is going to have to provide present-day evidence for them even having, if they think they're going to attack Iran in serial sorties in onesies and twosies so to tank on the way in and out, they'll be blown out of the sky with that kind of time requirement, lack of surprise, not to mention being massively outnumbered by Iran's air defenses over enemy airspace.  That's just patently stupid and the IDF won't be dumb enough to even entertain such a mission.  I'd give the mission a near zero percent chance of success and that's not even taking into account they don't have any weapons capable of doing diddly squat.  The optimism doth spilleth over I'm afraid.

[Yamato]

and then, on 21 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

The Iranians seem to be less sure of that than the all wise and seeing among us here at UM.  They're yelling at everyone who'll listen that they'll close the strights and bomb Israel and America if we dare attack.  Somethings got them a trifle worried and I certainly don't think it's OBY's bluster.

Well they're actually being threatened with acts of war, unlike Israel and all of its kool aid believers.

[Parsip]

Iran's program can be delayed by at least 1-2 years simply by destroying the facilities at Esfahan, Natanz, Arak, and Tehran, all of which are in Northern/Central Iran. If Israel enters Iran from the north they should be able to reach all the facilities easily. Iran's air defense system is actually pretty outdated, but their SAMs and fighter aircraft would still be quite a challenge, but Israel's air force should be able to defeat them. Israel's main worries are probably the political consequences of an attack, and Iranian retaliation.

Edited by Parsip, 22 March 2012 - 06:07 AM.

[Yamato]

Parsip, on 22 March 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

Iran's program can be delayed by at least 1-2 years simply by destroying the facilities at Esfahan, Natanz, Arak, and Tehran, all of which are in Northern/Central Iran. If Israel enters Iran from the north they should be able to reach all the facilities easily. Iran's air defense system is actually pretty outdated, but their SAMs and fighter aircraft would still be quite a challenge, but Israel's air force should be able to defeat them. Israel's main worries are probably the political consequences of an attack, and Iranian retaliation.

LOL

And what magical weapon from the planet Kolob are they going to use to destroy those facilities, pray tell?

Bottom line:  They need the US no matter how that rotten cake gets cut.  They need the USAF to refuel, unless they've practiced their carrier landings which they haven't.  Unless Iraq allows them use of their airfields, nevermind letting Israeli jets fly over Iraqi airspace in the first place (LOL).

Please cite your evidence that Iran's air defense system is outdated when compared to Israeli aircraft.  Of course their air defenses are going to provide not just a challenge but an unacceptable risk.  Hauling magical mystery weapons to the target with no fuel for combat maneuvering, no afterburner, no dogfighting, no air to air loadout.  What's Iraq going to do, protect Israeli jets when Iran is hard after them and blowing their tails off?   If Israel wants to start a world war and suffer 25-50% losses doing mouse-fart damage that isn't going to "destroy" anything, I say bombs away!  Otherwise, let's pass the kool aid to the lip-stained masses who believe the nonsense the establishment tells them.

Israel can't do diddly squat to Iran and it knows it.  That's why the US's biggest enemy in the world, Israel, is going to do everything in its power to once again drag the US into another bloody war of nonsense in the Middle East on its behalf.  Just watch the news.  There's more fear mongering BS being spread about Iran today than ever.

[and then]

Yamato, on 22 March 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

Even granted airborne refueling which someone is going to have to provide present-day evidence for them even having, if they think they're going to attack Iran in serial sorties in onesies and twosies so to tank on the way in and out, they'll be blown out of the sky with that kind of time requirement, lack of surprise, not to mention being massively outnumbered by Iran's air defenses over enemy airspace.  That's just patently stupid and the IDF won't be dumb enough to even entertain such a mission.  I'd give the mission a near zero percent chance of success and that's not even taking into account they don't have any weapons capable of doing diddly squat. The optimism doth spilleth over I'm afraid.

Hell, Yam, you may be right.  But I don't think so. The Israeli's, with the exception of the last two dances with the Hamas and Hizballah, have done some pretty inventive and unsusupected things in their conflicts.  From what little info leaked out I recall that the Syrians never even knew they were being attacked until it was too late.  They had roughly the same air defense doctrine and equipment from the Russians as Iran now does.  Their "secret" reactor was a smoking hole before their radars even told them there was a problem.  Iran does have better systems but I wouldn't rely too much on those.  Unfortunately their almost certainly be Israeli losses if they have to attack.  But Parsip is correct about the amount of damage that can be inflicted.  And Iran will NOT massively retaliate.  They just won't do it.  If they do they invite an American response that destabilizes their regime.  But they still could come out smelling of roses politically.  Once they can cry victimhood they get the sanctions dropped and start to rebuild...  It's a damned mess and only gets worse if Iran decides to actually assemble a weapon.  It's foolishness to assume at this point that that is not their goal.  
Iran will probably not be able to resist some terror strikes in the region but they won't want to leave obvious fingerprints.  
I STILL think Syria will be the spark that sets the region on fire though.

The Israelis have a history of optimism.  Remember '47,'56,'67',73,'82?

Edited by and then, 22 March 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[Parsip]

Yamato, on 22 March 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

LOL

And what magical weapon from the planet Kolob are they going to use to destroy those facilities, pray tell?

Bottom line:  They need the US no matter how that rotten cake gets cut.  They need the USAF to refuel, unless they've practiced their carrier landings which they haven't.  Unless Iraq allows them use of their airfields, nevermind letting Israeli jets fly over Iraqi airspace in the first place (LOL).

Please cite your evidence that Iran's air defense system is outdated when compared to Israeli aircraft.  Of course their air defenses are going to provide not just a challenge but an unacceptable risk.  Hauling magical mystery weapons to the target with no fuel for combat maneuvering, no afterburner, no dogfighting, no air to air loadout.  What's Iraq going to do, protect Israeli jets when Iran is hard after them and blowing their tails off?   If Israel wants to start a world war and suffer 25-50% losses doing mouse-fart damage that isn't going to "destroy" anything, I say bombs away!  Otherwise, let's pass the kool aid to the lip-stained masses who believe the nonsense the establishment tells them.

Israel can't do diddly squat to Iran and it knows it.  That's why the US's biggest enemy in the world, Israel, is going to do everything in its power to once again drag the US into another bloody war of nonsense in the Middle East on its behalf.  Just watch the news.  There's more fear mongering BS being spread about Iran today than ever.

I don't know what Israel would use; that's their decision. All we know is what they, and Iran, have. That information is freely available on the internet. Why ask me? You're free to do your own Google searches of what types of aircraft, bombs, SAMs, radar systems that any country possesses. I'll help you a bit: Israel may use F-15s and F-16s, and Iran may use their SA-5s! You can look up the rest.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 21 March 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

It's also a joke that Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities.  After all of these years of media embarrassments, it still amazes me how long such BS can be spread around in the media and repeated ad nauseum till it's taken seriously by the politicians, punditry, and people who don't have a clue what they're talking about as usual.

Israel will need to takeoff and land in Iraq if they want to strike Iran, and if the IDF wants to do meaningful damage to Iran's nuclear facilities they'll need to rent the B-52 bombers they're not trained to operate.   And good luck surviving Iran's air defenses flying B-52s deep into their airspace.  Face it.  Israel attacking Iran is kool aid.  It is nonsense.  It is par for the course that the ignorant masses chew.  Only the US is capable of damaging Iran's nuclear facilities and since we all bow down to lick the dirty feet of Israel it won't surprise me one bit if our shills actually do.

This is why people should do a little research before making statements like this. Firstly, Israel doesn't have B-52's and no aircraft of the type are based in the Middle East. Secondly, Iran's AA defences are in serious need of a refurbishment and could easily be defeated with precision airstrikes and up-to-date electronic countermeasures and jamming devices. Yes, they do field more modern systems but these are too few in number and too precious for the Iranians to deploy to protect anything less than the most vital and important sites which could be targets. Thirdly, Israel doesn't need to attack Iran from the air. It has plenty of bunkerbusting and ballistic missiles in its sumbarine fleet, all of which can slip in and out of the Arabian Gulf before the Iranians can retaliate.

So, once again Yamato, leave the military talk to people who know what they are talking about.

[DarkHunter]

It always does help to do a bit of research before one post on military matters.

This is a video I found of a bunker buster Israel developed http://freebeacon.co...buster-missile/
This website seems to go into more detail about the bunker buster but I don't have the time to read it all  http://www.agile-news.com/news-1097571-Israel-will-equip-light-bunker-killer.html

As for Iran's AA abilities and aircraft, it seems to be rather lacking.  The vast majority of their AA abilities seems rather dated at best, it appears most of the SAMs are from 1970 technology or just upgraded verisons of 1970 SAMs with a few exceptions of more recent designs.  Iran's air force also appears to be lacking compared to Israel, Israel got F-15s (193 when all variances are added together)and F-16s (203 when are variances are added together), while Iran has for air-superiority F-14s (25), Mirage F1 (10), MiG 29s (25), for interceptors they got F-7M Airguard (20).  When it comes to air superiority it appears Israel has a decisive advantage.  

Then you get the reports of Israel trying or getting depending on the source bunker busters from the US along with refueling aircraft.

This is all assuming Israel would not use drones or their navy to strike at Iran if they decide to pursue that course of action.

[Yamato]

Parsip, on 22 March 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

I don't know what Israel would use; that's their decision. All we know is what they, and Iran, have. That information is freely available on the internet. Why ask me? You're free to do your own Google searches of what types of aircraft, bombs, SAMs, radar systems that any country possesses. I'll help you a bit: Israel may use F-15s and F-16s, and Iran may use their SA-5s! You can look up the rest.

I see absolutely no evidence that suggests F-16s or F-15s are invulnerable to Iranian air power or air defenses.  If you think they're limited to SA-5s you need to do homework.
And you don't know what Israel would use nor does anyone else.  But they don't think about that, they just think right over it because they're too intellectually lazy not to believe the nonsense they're told 500 times on TV.

[Yamato]

DarkHunter, on 22 March 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

It always does help to do a bit of research before one post on military matters.

This is a video I found of a bunker buster Israel developed http://freebeacon.co...buster-missile/
This website seems to go into more detail about the bunker buster but I don't have the time to read it all  http://www.agile-news.com/news-1097571-Israel-will-equip-light-bunker-killer.html

As for Iran's AA abilities and aircraft, it seems to be rather lacking.  The vast majority of their AA abilities seems rather dated at best, it appears most of the SAMs are from 1970 technology or just upgraded verisons of 1970 SAMs with a few exceptions of more recent designs.  Iran's air force also appears to be lacking compared to Israel, Israel got F-15s (193 when all variances are added together)and F-16s (203 when are variances are added together), while Iran has for air-superiority F-14s (25), Mirage F1 (10), MiG 29s (25), for interceptors they got F-7M Airguard (20).  When it comes to air superiority it appears Israel has a decisive advantage.  

Then you get the reports of Israel trying or getting depending on the source bunker busters from the US along with refueling aircraft.

This is all assuming Israel would not use drones or their navy to strike at Iran if they decide to pursue that course of action.

Israel needs the US; that's the point.  It needs the US politically, militarily, and logistically.

Israeli jets are 1970s technology.  An F-4E Phantom is perfectly capable of running down and destroying an F-15 or F-16L especially when they don't have fuel to fight.  Hauling fantasy payloads across fantasy ranges and ignoring every glaringly obvious obstacle to having any manner of success makes these missions impossible.  If Israel is imprudent and wants to threaten their own people to no good effect, actually striking Iran would be a good way to do it.  Otherwise the usual saber rattling and war mongering trying to get the US involved is smart politics when you're an Israeli bureaucrat.  Israel can defend itself but what it can't do is strike Iran and expect the resulting hardening of Iran's resolve to play out in its favor.  If Israel strikes Iran, Iran probably will develop the bomb eventually.

If Israel expands its tanker fleet of elderly 707s, if it produces large numbers of 500lb bunker busters and carries a disproportionate amount of external fuel to the target and back, if it gets clearance to fly over Iraqi airspace, if it is capable of attacking with surprise, and if, if and if...then a small amount of damage to Iranian nuclear facilities could hypothetically be done. Unfortunately for the kool aid drinkers it does not have these capabilities at this time so fantasize faster with that right hand.  If anyone's happy with a temporary delay in Iran's legal nuclear program it has the right to pursue together with a long term buttressing and acceleration of it, then Israel won't repeat these strikes again, and again, and again, and again to be any manner of meaningful over time.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 22 March 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

This is why people should do a little research before making statements like this. Firstly, Israel doesn't have B-52's and no aircraft of the type are based in the Middle East. Secondly, Iran's AA defences are in serious need of a refurbishment and could easily be defeated with precision airstrikes and up-to-date electronic countermeasures and jamming devices. Yes, they do field more modern systems but these are too few in number and too precious for the Iranians to deploy to protect anything less than the most vital and important sites which could be targets. Thirdly, Israel doesn't need to attack Iran from the air. It has plenty of bunkerbusting and ballistic missiles in its sumbarine fleet, all of which can slip in and out of the Arabian Gulf before the Iranians can retaliate.

So, once again Yamato, leave the military talk to people who know what they are talking about.

LOL you're dreaming the amazing dream.  I've never seen you as one to know about military issues.  Are you even serving?  You're the perfect age to do so.

Firstly, Israel needing to rent B-52s obviously implied they don't have any, so why are you telling me that?  

Secondly, they're striking Iranian SAM sites with airstrikes too?  Now you're really getting kool aid stained.  You're going to have so many targets to hit and so many bombs required to hit them with there won't be much left to carry out the fantasy mission of destroying the out-of-range nuclear sites with the magic weapons Israel doesn't even have.  The element of surprise will be gone with the wind too, and having Iranian interceptors in your face a thousand miles from home with no fuel to fight is so laughable and ludicrous only the unschooled naive who believe what they hear on TV would believe it.

If the most important sites are protected with modern systems then that makes my point for me as well.  The strikes are meaningless when the valuable targets are protected.  And the valuable targets are protected by so many layers of protection, it's a kool aid picnic hearing you self-proclaimed military experts yammer on about how easy it is.

As for your claims about the quantity and quality of Iranian air defenses, provide the source you have that verifies what you claim.  As for your claims about Israeli submarines and what they will or would do to Iran, provide your source please.