Will Israel attack Iran?

[Rich46yo]

for starters........not understanding that the usa supplies airborne re-fueling to the israeli air force.

Gee really? No kidding?

So do tell a USAF vet exactly why you are stunned?

This, "cutting into a thread with unsupported stupidity", is really starting to grind on me.

Then you'll notice he followed up this silly post with two completely irrelevantly stupid posts.

[indy007]

Yes...but it takes more than just tankers. It would take larger numbers of aircraft, MANY more, to hit all the targets' needed to halt/slow any Iranian weapons' program. Plus, these strikes would most likely be the longest-ranged operations ever undertaken by the IAF. The Osirak strike was at the limits' of their range unrefueled; This will be twice as far, roughly. Also, SAR for any downed pilots will be problematic, at best, unless maybe they can make it out and get picked up in the Gulf, or perhaps make it to Iraq, since it's under friendly control. With U.S. cooperation, they could probably stage out of Iraq, but where this puts us, or Maliki's gov't., in relations to Iran, is a different thing.

The Osirak strike was undertaken by very early model F-16s. The F-16I was given conformal tanks to be able to make this kind of strike, and I'd imagine they've gotten some engine upgrades since then too.

The Syrians are using air defense systems equivelent to the Iranians. They didn't even know they'd been attacked.

You don't have to destroy every piece of a research operation either, just the expensive and hard to replace pieces.

[Rich46yo]

The Osirak strike was undertaken by very early model F-16s. The F-16I was given conformal tanks to be able to make this kind of strike, and I'd imagine they've gotten some engine upgrades since then too.

The Syrians are using air defense systems equivelent to the Iranians. They didn't even know they'd been attacked.

You don't have to destroy every piece of a research operation either, just the expensive and hard to replace pieces.

So what pieces are that ?

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=vjzq9ygxxqb&thumb=4

Anyone ever look at a map of the region?  From Israeli air bases to Tehran is about 1,000 miles as the crows fly, and thru 3 or 4 other countries that are hostile. One of which, Saudi, has its own operational AWACs that it didn't have at the time of Osirak. So exactly where would you put a tanker aircraft? Where it would be safe? And able to refuel jets? And those Jets would be flying the entire run on the deck which just gobbles fuel. The ranges given on Internet sights usually specify optimum altitudes and fuel burn rates. They sure dont quote burn rates 50' off the grass at mach .9 .

So now you have all these conventional fighter jets crossing all this hostile territory, loaded down with all this fuel which reduces payload. And they have to strike all these sites, or, a lot of them http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles_pdfs/Iran/iran_nuclear_sites.pdf

And if your going to hit them you may as well hit their other WMD sites. Dont forget Iran isn't only about making nuclear bombs. They are well along the way of producing the entire process of home grown enrichment, weaponization, and delivery. In other words creating an entire Industrial process, from A to Z, of making nukes/WMDs and delivering them onto targets. That means they will have their own assembly lines for weapons, missiles, targeting systems, launch systems, command and control systems...ect The entire shebang!

I dont think the Israelis have the ability to derail this. And they sure dont have the capability to sustain a rolling, 3 day, air offensive. To even suggest that is ludicrous.

[ZetaNine]

Gee really? No kidding?

So do tell a USAF vet exactly why you are stunned?

This, "cutting into a thread with unsupported stupidity", is really starting to grind on me.

Then you'll notice he followed up this silly post with two completely irrelevantly stupid posts.

pssss......you're the one that made the moronic re-fuel comment............stop your whinning and kill the drama......

[Elfie]

And they sure dont have the capability to sustain a rolling, 3 day, air offensive.

THe IAF is well trained, led and supplied, they can sustain an air offensive for as long as they need to.

[ZetaNine]

THe IAF is well trained, led and supplied, they can sustain an air offensive for as long as they need to.

RACK HIM!!

[Rich46yo]

THe IAF is well trained, led and supplied, they can sustain an air offensive for as long as they need to.

1,500 miles from their supply and support?

They have no aircraft carriers. They will have no AWACs they can bring with. They have no heavy bombers. They have limited refueling capability. They have no way of taking out the air defenses of all the hostile countries they have to fly threw to get to Iran. No, no! Its a one shot deal. They have one shot at it and there is no way they can sustain an air offensive so far from their own bases.

At least two of the countries they will have to fly thru have American and Euro air defense assets. Three actually if you inclide Iran which still operates HAWK batteries. An old but still effective system. The IAF is going to have to penetrate by stealth, attack with surprise, and then egress by stealth again. They would be lucky to even make it to the targets undetected.

pssss......you're the one that made the moronic re-fuel comment............stop your whinning and kill the drama......

You havnt said one thing in this thread that has made sense you nit-wit so I guess this post is par for the course. You really have no idea what your talking about do you?

[Elfie]

1,500 miles from their supply and support?

That's not what you said originally now is it? You said:

And they sure dont have the capability to sustain a rolling, 3 day, air offensive.

That is just ludicrous.

The IAF is one of the finest Air Forces on this planet. If there is a way, and they feel the need, they will eradicate Iran's nuclear program.

[Elfie]

At least two of the countries they will have to fly thru have American and Euro air defense assets. Three actually if you inclide Iran which still operates HAWK batteries. An old but still effective system. The IAF is going to have to penetrate by stealth, attack with surprise, and then egress by stealth again. They would be lucky to even make it to the targets undetected.

The Syrians apparently have that new Russian air defense system that is supposedly *top shelf* stuff. They got hit by an IAF strike and never saw it coming. Iran has the same system now.

[Rich46yo]

The Syrians apparently have that new Russian air defense system that is supposedly *top shelf* stuff. They got hit by an IAF strike and never saw it coming. Iran has the same system now.

Elfie you arent saying "how" they will do so. Your just saying they "will".

Syria, and the SAF, is a chipshot compared to taking on the Iranians so far from your own bases.

The IAF raid on the eastern Syrian site was easy compared to what they would have to pull off in Iran. First off this site wasnt an active reactor yet so there was no threat of a contamination disaster. The facility was above ground and its destruction put a big dent in Syrian efforts to weaponize cause they have a comparatively small/centralized program compared to oil rich Iran.

Iran went a different route regarding enrichment to weapons grade material. They are using an enrichment process that lends itself well to a decentralized, dispersed program. Actually they are investing heavily into several different types of enrichment technologies which makes hitting them effectively even more problematic. Add to that the fact that several of the targets are active reactors, near active reactors, or that the enrichment targets have highly radioactive materials present. I assume the Israelis have figured a Chernobyl type disaster would do nobody any good.

In other words the Iranians are not putting all their eggs into one basket as Saddam and the Syrians did. They are actively pursuing both uranium enrichment and Plutonium development in a widely dispersed program which features many targets, some of them hardened, and all of them well protected and a long, long way from Israeli airspace.

You cant really compare these two prior attacks with what they would have to pull off in Iran. The IAF doesnt have invisible heavy bombers or a navy that could launch 500 long range cruise missiles without even blinking. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/index.html

[FrodeMk3]

That's not what you said originally now is it? You said:

That is just ludicrous.

The IAF is one of the finest Air Forces on this planet. If there is a way, and they feel the need, they will eradicate Iran's nuclear program.

I don't think anyone doubts' the Isreali resolve on this one Elfie, It's just that Rich is right. This would not be as easy a job as Osirak or Syria. Keeping an element of suprise, whilst flying over 1,000 miles or more of hostile countries' that only have to pick up a phone to Tehran, would be a good trick.

Now, with sneakiness and subterfuge, they could pull it off by staging out of an American airbase in Iraq. I don't really doubt that the U.S. would co-operate, and we pretty much tell Maliki what to do anyways, so that would most likely be the trump card. Hell, they could even paint the planes in U.S. markings, fly them from Isreal to Iraq, R/R, hit their targets' in Iran the next day flying multiple sorties if they have to, and fly home when the op is done. But doing it all from Isreali Airspace is problematic, at best.

[AKIron]

Indeed there are difficult logistics involved. This was the operational function of the exercise Israel just conducted. They now know whether this endeavor is feasible. If they believe it can be accomplished it likely will be at least attempted if Iran remains uncooperative with the UN.

[bozon]

As an Israeli, I find this argument very amusing. The heart of the matter is that all other western countries are such rutabagas, that you can't even argue how they will stage an imaginary theoretical strike - it is just un-thinkable. I don't mean to offend, but this is the truth.

As for "how it can be done" I will only say that you are discussing the yesterday instead of today.

[ZetaNine]

That's not what you said originally now is it?

our boy rich46yo seems to be doing that a lot in this thread.

he also needs to learn how to take a punch to the gut and admit when he was wrong.....without crying like a girl.

first he didn't know we re-fuel their planes in flight...(then pretended like he did).....now it appears he does not know we supply AWACS..

[FrodeMk3]

As an Israeli, I find this argument very amusing. The heart of the matter is that all other western countries are such rutabagas, that you can't even argue how they will stage an imaginary theoretical strike - it is just un-thinkable. I don't mean to offend, but this is the truth.

As for "how it can be done" I will only say that you are discussing the yesterday instead of today.

To tell you the truth, Bozon, many of us americans' can't really discuss what our gov't. will do next, either-They just seem to get a wild hair up their ass, and do things' unpradictibly...Honestly, like turning from Afghanistan and going into Iraq. Lotsa people were thinking some other Terr. supporting country first, like Syria or Iran. As for the How, I imagine we'd use CV airstrikes, or B-2's, or Tomahawks, or any of a number of different ways we have to effect such a raid. The U.S. has quite a few different arrows in it's quiver.