Thread: Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets

The Iranians may be more circumspect than assumed about attacking U.S. targets. If so, I'd imagine in the most oblique and deniable fashion..., i.e, via uncontrollable, spontaneously sympathetic "friends".

Anything more overt would provide U.S. forces with all the rationale needed to retaliate in kind. I can't imagine a tit-for-tat respone by U.S. forces and I CAN imagine that every U.S.-related facility within a 6,000 mile radius being at full alert.

Even with a supposedly deniable attack there would remain the question among the Iranian leadership whether we'd let such slide.

A wider war might benefit some within Iran but it decidedly would not benefit the Iranian state as a whole.

Originally Posted by Gun Boat

Wouldn't that be a good thing if they lashed out? That way the US could knock them back to the stoneage and we could remove them from our worry list.

Depends, if the US 9and the GCC) know Israel is going to act and gives the tacit nod and is prepared to piggy back ad initio yes. If the US and GCC are not in on it no, it goes from a surgical strike to mess created by a bull loose in a China shop.

Fair enough. I was more thinking that on the first strike Iran would shoot off pretty every missile they had and fire off all their AAA rounds. The IAF could go in with light loads and maximum fuel for maneuver and loiter time. And then maybe follow up the next day.

Iran isn't going to run out of SAM's or shells...

If Israel does strike and does manage to take out the nuke sites it won't be done and dusted will it? Wont it start an on going conflict anyway?[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by S2

The Iranians may be more circumspect than assumed about attacking U.S. targets. If so, I'd imagine in the most oblique and deniable fashion..., i.e, via uncontrollable, spontaneously sympathetic "friends".

Anything more overt would provide U.S. forces with all the rationale needed to retaliate in kind. I can't imagine a tit-for-tat respone by U.S. forces and I CAN imagine that every U.S.-related facility within a 6,000 mile radius being at full alert.

Even with a supposedly deniable attack there would remain the question among the Iranian leadership whether we'd let such slide.

A wider war might benefit some within Iran but it decidedly would not benefit the Iranian state as a whole.

equipping the Taliban with TOW's and bigger more complex EFP's would hurt us bad.

The Iranians know how the attack would probably work - penetrator bombs. This gives them an opportunity to fortify their installations to be more damage resistant to such an attack. While the bombs would probably operate as designed, if the Iranians had built up their facilities into strongly compartmentalized areas- with blast vents, then a bomb like that might only destroy a relatively small part of the facility, with other parts remaining intact. Knocking out half of the facilities doesn't stop them, and they might have replacement equipment stockpiled elsewhere - to speed the recovery after such an attack. I would expect the nuclear materials not being processed are dispersed far away from the separation equipment too - it should be pretty easy to hide that stuff. These targets really look like targets for nuclear bunker busters - and it doesn't seem likely that there would be a first use of nukes at this point in time. Another unpleasant scenario in the nuclear attack could be the possibility of a dud being aquired by the Iranians.

I would be surprised if Israel could deliver a real knockout blow without the significant US assistance. If the US assists Israel, they might as well do it themselves to reduce the chance of an Arab Israeli war. It sounds like a ugly story no matter how it works out.

maybe they need the tungsten telephone poles from space approach...

"...equipping the Taliban with TOW's and bigger more complex EFP's would hurt us bad."

Not really. If more complex EFPs were available why aren't they already making their appearance?

TOWs? Neither a battle-changer in Afghanistan nor an act of retaliation worthy of attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities. Further, it's not like Israel attacks Iran's facilities on D-Day and then D+1 TOWs show up in Afghanistan where they're capably used to decisive effect.

That's not my concern at all.

Originally Posted by S2

"...equipping the Taliban with TOW's and bigger more complex EFP's would hurt us bad."

Not really. If more complex EFPs were available why aren't they already making their appearance?

TOWs? Neither a battle-changer in Afghanistan nor an act of retaliation worthy of attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities. Further, it's not like Israel attacks Iran's facilities on D-Day and then D+1 TOWs show up in Afghanistan where they're capably used to decisive effect.

That's not my concern at all.

In the context of quiet retaliation and proxy wars. why didn't the Soviet Union send sagger's to Vietnam? right now IED's are a causing the US Military and NATO a bleeding sore and the Taliban a sunni group is creating its own problems with non-Pashtun tribes both of which favor Iran's ambitions in the southern part of the country. Adding in more complex EFP's and actual TOW's would be a cheap way to up the cost we have to pay while minimizing the risks Iran might have to pay.

Retaliation against America via the East through plausible dependability for overt Israeli action coming from the West also gives Iran a chance to play the Arab street. If they don't engage is massed missile fire on US and GCC bases, the US will find it hard to support Israel when the world press launches its inevitable riposte against any Israeli military action.

hen of course there are simple economic attacks- the ending of exports to England and France meant zero on how many barrels iran actually shipped out and zero to how much oil was on the world market. but it negatively affected prices costing end consumers billions of dollars a day in the midst of a far from over economic slump in the West.

Iran's options may not be as many or as effective as America's, but they may be.* She surely has more options than anyone else but America however.

* The rules we play and our domestic political fragmentation by often limit the range of options we can use and thus leave us without the full might we might otherwise bring to bear in multiple areas.

In the context of quiet retaliation and proxy wars..."

I don't see any functional change here by Iran. While Israel attacks Iran's nuclear reactors you postulate the Iranian reaction might be to arm the taliban, something which our forces in Afghanistan already watch acutely, with even more capable IEDs (as though they exist and are stockpiled for supply and use at a moment's notice) and TOW weaponry.

Assuming all this happened...so? These are combat troops already in a war zone. I've little doubt but that our reaction to such there would be prompt and effective.

"...right now IED's are a causing the US Military and NATO a bleeding sore..."

America has lost 1738 men in Afghanistan since early 2002. Ten years. You do the math but, as wars go, this one is remarkably sustainable on the military front. Were it not for the use of IEDs the taliban would have no effect on our forces worth mentioning.

"...and the Taliban a sunni group is creating its own problems with non-Pashtun tribes both of which favor Iran's ambitions in the southern part of the country..."

Whatever their future ambitions in Afghanistan, those shall take a back-seat to more immediate pressing matters like Israeli aircraft over their skies.

"...Retaliation against America via the East through plausible dependability for overt Israeli action..."

It won't be all that plausible should we desire to view it otherwise. OTOH, hell might freeze over before new and improved EFPs and TOWs leave us shaking in our boots...that is, if shaking at all.

"...coming from the West also gives Iran a chance to play the Arab street..."

Heavens! Not THE ARAB STREET! As if they'd give a fcuk about the Iranians. As if the Israelis cared should they even do. As if it would change matters in Natanz, Qom, Arak or Ardakan.

As if we'd care. Well..., maybe Obama might. I suppose another apology from him isn't out of the question.

"...hen of course there are simple economic attacks- the ending of exports to England and France meant zero on how many barrels iran actually shipped out and zero to how much oil was on the world market. but it negatively affected prices costing end consumers billions of dollars a day in the midst of a far from over economic slump in the West..."

Foregone conclusion that any combat over Iran will see a price hike. Were that not the case such would likely have already happened.

"...Iran's options may not be as many or as effective as America's, but they may be.* She surely has more options than anyone else but America however..."

Israel's options are beyond Iran's ability to influence matters should it be determined in Tel Aviv they've no choice but to proceed forward. If so, Iran's retaliation upon America must be considerably more decisive should they wish to gain America's influence to halt matters.

"...* The rules we play and our domestic political fragmentation by often limit the range of options we can use and thus leave us without the full might we might otherwise bring to bear in multiple areas."

If Iran overplays it's hand, they face America piling on as a very real possibility-domestic considerations or otherwise. We've spent much time here discussing the rallying effect upon Iran's populace if attacked. Almost nobody has considered the effect upon the American people if our diplomats, soldiers, and/or citizens are attacked by Iran in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike.

That effect may be dramatically more galvanizing than presumed by some.

Originally Posted by Gun Boat

Wouldn't that be a good thing if they lashed out? That way the US could knock them back to the stoneage and we could remove them from our worry list.

Yeah, if there's one thing the US needs right now it's ANOTHER war. As someone who was in what's almost certainly Iran's Target #1 just a few weeks ago, no I don't think it's a good thing.

Originally Posted by zraver

Jimmy, a2a is not my thing but Iranian capabilities are. The Iranian F-14's with the domestically produced AIM-54 and F-4's with domestically produced sparrows are a credible standoff threat to any Israeli strike package and the Eagles have to be aware of it. The Mig-29's and F-5's are not really a BVR threat, but are more than capable of forcing the eagles to waste missiles or drop bombs off target. Mig-19's did yeoman's work against US bombers in Vietnam and its a similar situation here. Israel also has a range problem- the F-15i's have the one way range but israel only has 25 of them, and the C's might if given CFT's but that cuts the C's missile load down.

It won't be bloodless, but I don't think the Iranians can put up the quantity OR quality necessary to stop Israel. Their primary defense is the ADS. If Israel can handle that (and honestly I don't know, but I assume they can SEAD pretty damn well), they can punch through the handful of F-5s and F-4s, and MAYBE an F-14 or two. I'd put $20 on at least 1/3 of any Phoenix, indigenous or leftover from their original buy, exploding as they comes off the rail. Bottom line, they have mediocre equipment, lower quality training than Israel, inferior tactics, and their ability to even LAUNCH a meaningful DCA force is questionable. If Israel were going to strike, they'd be pulling out all the stops. That's the bad thing about defense...you're inherently defensive and reactionary. The aggressor has the initiative and selects the time and place.

I'd be concerned about Israeli nukes. The fact is there is already a war going on as evidenced by the assasination of Iranian Scientists and the bombings by Iranian agents. Both were most likely state sponsored terrorism. If the retaliation for an Israeli strike caused huge casualties isn't the purpose of a nuclear arsenal to retaliate in that case? I think an Israeli strike would bolster the Iranian goverment when they wave their bloody flag. As it is now the increased sanctions are causing real pain and pain is a great motivater. I'm sure U.S. intel knows how far along and the USA has a stated policy of preventing Iran to go Nuclear and a President who hasn't been reluctant to use military force if it's needed.

Originally Posted by S2

In the context of quiet retaliation and proxy wars..."

I don't see any functional change here by Iran. While Israel attacks Iran's nuclear reactors you postulate the Iranian reaction might be to arm the taliban, something which our forces in Afghanistan already watch acutely, with even more capable IEDs (as though they exist and are stockpiled for supply and use at a moment's notice) and TOW weaponry.

Assuming all this happened...so? These are combat troops already in a war zone. I've little doubt but that our reaction to such there would be prompt and effective.

The EFP's exist, Iran was shipping them into Iraq, for the sot part we haven't seen them in Afghanistan. The EFP's are a completely different beast from IED's you know this down playing the danger isn't wise.

America has lost 1738 men in Afghanistan since early 2002. Ten years. You do the math but, as wars go, this one is remarkably sustainable on the military front. Were it not for the use of IEDs the taliban would have no effect on our forces worth mentioning.

We have been spending between 5 and 7 billion a month in Afghanistan. Introducing EFP's and standoff weapons which care about an MRAP's mine resistant chassis as a tank round does would force more spending and reaction. The MRAP's already have off road trouble due to the weight. Adding ERA to stop missiles will only make things worse. I'm not even sure ERA can stop an EFP's jet with the vehicle armor behind it so thin.

Whatever their future ambitions in Afghanistan, those shall take a back-seat to more immediate pressing matters like Israeli aircraft over their skies.

Israel can't keep jets over Iran.

It won't be all that plausible should we desire to view it otherwise. OTOH, hell might freeze over before new and improved EFPs and TOWs leave us shaking in our boots...that is, if shaking at all.

Look at this from the national and international political perspective. The global economy is in shambles, the Euro is collapsing, the war is not popular at all with many of our NATO allies who have growing domestic concerns. Our ability to take the gloves off is restricted by outside events.

Heavens! Not THE ARAB STREET! As if they'd give a fcuk about the Iranians. As if the Israelis cared should they even do. As if it would change matters in Natanz, Qom, Arak or Ardakan.

The Gulf countires have sizable Shina minorities, for the most part Iran played nice during the Arab spring. However make is a Jew and Christian v Islam event and those minorities who resent us, especially in Bahrian can cause us a whole new set of headaches.

As if we'd care. Well..., maybe Obama might. I suppose another apology from him isn't out of the question.

heh... lol, at least he had the guts to deliver a high velocity apology to Osama, " Sorry dude, just can't share the same air with ya, see ya at God's Place."

Foregone conclusion that any combat over Iran will see a price hike. Were that not the case such would likely have already happened.

But the unstable nature of the global economy and the eurozone crisis makes it worse.

Israel's options are beyond Iran's ability to influence matters should it be determined in Tel Aviv they've no choice but to proceed forward. If so, Iran's retaliation upon America must be considerably more decisive should they wish to gain America's influence to halt matters.

Not unless she goes nuclear... Iran can hit Israel far easier than Israel can hit Iran. Iran has public talked about hitting Dimona in retaliation if Israel causes a nuclear event in Iran. There is a real danger than Israel will hit a purely civil hot site and cause a radiation release. The world got lucky with Osirak. That reactor could not be used to make plutonium in usable amounts. But Israel hit it anyway for the photo op it offered and sparked Saddam's real nuclear ambitions.

If Iran overplays it's hand, they face America piling on as a very real possibility-domestic considerations or otherwise. We've spent much time here discussing the rallying effect upon Iran's populace if attacked. Almost nobody has considered the effect upon the American people if our diplomats, soldiers, and/or citizens are attacked by Iran in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike.

Since Praying Mantis, Iran has been very effective They were far more aggressive vis a vis Bush who was far more willing to use force and we didn't act. at its brinksmanship never actually crossing the line.

That effect may be dramatically more galvanizing than presumed by some.

If they get overt, if they simply turn up the heat in other areas, areas where the majority of Americans have become disinterested there is a very real risk that our GI's will die in larger numbers and too many citizens won't care 1/10 as much as they do about their underwater mortgage or who ever the quest speaker on "The View" is.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Yeah, if there's one thing the US needs right now it's ANOTHER war. As someone who was in what's almost certainly Iran's Target #1 just a few weeks ago, no I don't think it's a good thing.

It won't be bloodless, but I don't think the Iranians can put up the quantity OR quality necessary to stop Israel. Their primary defense is the ADS. If Israel can handle that (and honestly I don't know, but I assume they can SEAD pretty damn well), they can punch through the handful of F-5s and F-4s, and MAYBE an F-14 or two. I'd put $20 on at least 1/3 of any Phoenix, indigenous or leftover from their original buy, exploding as they comes off the rail. Bottom line, they have mediocre equipment, lower quality training than Israel, inferior tactics, and their ability to even LAUNCH a meaningful DCA force is questionable. If Israel were going to strike, they'd be pulling out all the stops. That's the bad thing about defense...you're inherently defensive and reactionary. The aggressor has the initiative and selects the time and place.

I don't disagree with a single thing you've said. However, because Iran can put about 60 all weather fighters in the air the Israeli war birds have to carry a credible ability to do A2A missions/ This cuts down on hard points, range or both. This is a problem given the ranges being talked about, the number of targets, limited air frames and layered ADA networks. Israel only has 25 strike eagles which they call Thunders. This leaves the C's and D's for the A2A and SEAD work and these platforms lack the inherent range of the strike eagles.

Plus any aircraft shot down offer Iran the chance of Israeli POW's and propaganda footage.

Finally, I'll take that bet, Iran's ability to make solid rocket fuel is not even a question in my mind. They've proven they can ove rand over again. Iran's big failings remain in micro electronics and metallurgy, not chemistry.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Yeah, if there's one thing the US needs right now it's ANOTHER war. As someone who was in what's almost certainly Iran's Target #1 just a few weeks ago, no I don't think it's a good thing.

It won't be bloodless, but I don't think the Iranians can put up the quantity OR quality necessary to stop Israel. Their primary defense is the ADS. If Israel can handle that (and honestly I don't know, but I assume they can SEAD pretty damn well), they can punch through the handful of F-5s and F-4s, and MAYBE an F-14 or two. I'd put $20 on at least 1/3 of any Phoenix, indigenous or leftover from their original buy, exploding as they comes off the rail. Bottom line, they have mediocre equipment, lower quality training than Israel, inferior tactics, and their ability to even LAUNCH a meaningful DCA force is questionable. If Israel were going to strike, they'd be pulling out all the stops. That's the bad thing about defense...you're inherently defensive and reactionary. The aggressor has the initiative and selects the time and place.

Jimmy, I'm totally in agreement with you on this one; there's a lot of talk about Iranian F-14's and (maybe) AIM-54's. There's another thread somewhere around here that goes into a lot more detail but, the bottom line is, the motors on the AIM-54's the Iranians DO have probably went bad a long time ago. That's not to say they couldn't produce a replacement locally but, as zraver said, that's just part of the missle; I would be very surprised if there were still any operational AIM-54's anywhere in Iran. As for the F-14, historically, the Iranians have used it as an AWACS platform (especially during the Iran-Iraq War), not as an a-to-a fighter.

However, for those of you who doubt the F-14 is still flying in Iran, here's a video of "Day Of Army" in Tehran a few years ago that shows at least six flying examples of the F-14, possibly more:

Aviation Video: Flight of Iranian F-14 Tomcats in 2008/04/17 | Patrick's Aviation

TOWs to Taliban?

How do you keep the batteries charged up (they are real power hogs)? How do you keep the MGS systems calibrated? What missiles? The ones Ollie North gave them? Those all came from lots which were suspended and found to be unreliable...they were all lines up to be destroyed.

My own amateur opinion: This isn't Osirak.

Israel doesn't have the logistical or ordnance capability to mount a strike -successful or otherwise- on Iran.

They barely have the strike aircraft numbers needed, they would have to send virtually every F-15 and F-16 in their inventory.