Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran  
User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12057 times:

Today's Washington Post carried an article which cited "former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald suggest[ing] that the United States provide Israel with three KC-135 refueling tankers." This would enable Israeli F-16s and F-15s to reach targets in Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...2/07/gIQAWQs5zQ_story.html?hpid=z3

What has happened to Israel's 707 tankers? I believe they were used during the Israeli attack on PLO targets in Algiers, so why not use them in an attack on Iran? USAF assets participating in an Israel-only attack would be idiotic to the degree that it would mean total and premeditated US complicity at a time when it needs plausible deniability.

n.b. I am not advocating such an attack or any strategy relating to the matter, just wondering what has become of this aerial asset and why "informed" personnel would make an offer of USAF KC-135s.

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7632 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11914 times:

If they are not advocating an attack with US, (which seems to be the situation) I am unclear what their stance is.

Besides, given the similarities between a B707 and KC135, the US will get the credit even if Israel attacks on it's own.

Is that the intention?.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11788 times:

Perhaps the current IDF tanker fleet is too small to bring an effective strike force to Iran. 3 KC-135 (E or R?) should be enough for another 6-9 F-15I int he strike package. This could just be a supplement.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11773 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 2):
This could just be a supplement

Bingo. However the PR problem if one doesn't return will be huge.


User currently offlinepackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11744 times:

Why can't they lease one and repaint it. If they are set on attacking Iran, I wouldn't put it past them to just repaint one, or three... or more


Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11431 times:

I appreciate that 3 KC-135s could be a supplement to the 707 tankers in the IAF. Who would operate these airplanes, US or Israeli crews? (I presume that if Israeli then there would be a "crash" checkout process for the crew). The US would not be prepared to lose a crew in combat or due to attrition. I also presume any "loaners" would be active service KC-135Rs and not airplanes withdrawn from the "Boneyard."

The US will still be blamed for premeditated participation---as they did during the 1973 war. Ex-USAFE F-4Es were flown directly to Israel by USAFE crews. The planes entered combat in USAF colors but with IAF roundels. This contributed to the Arab belief that US crews were fighting on behalf of Israel (Anwar Sadat complained about this publicly after the war started to go badly for the Egyptians).

Incidentally, after a quick check of references I find 5 IAF 707 Re'em: 260, 264, 272, 275, and 290. They certainly aren't enough to sustain an aerial campaign, but are they enough to support, say, 3 packages out-and-back from Israel to Iran?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erezms



User currently offlineiceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11376 times:

Hmmm Israel is short on tankers? They might just want to buy some KC767's me thinks, :p

In all honesty though, while on a moral/ally level, seems like a fine move, one does have to wonder the PR implications of having US metal supporting operations of a different nation. It'll be awfully interesting to see how it all pans out...



Erik Berg (Foster's is over but never forgotten)
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11325 times:

Isn't IAI converting 767 tankers for Colombia?

3 KC-135s could be used for friendly areas (filling strike packages between takeoff and over Saudi Arabia), returning to base, refueling and launching to meet the returning aircraft. You'd get 6 sorties out that, effectively doubling the IDF tanker force.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11115 times:

The KC-135Rs have about twice the off-load capability of the KC-707. Each KC-135 can combat refuel (pre-strike and post-strike) 6 attacking aircraft, making the total of 18, for bombing and CAP. The Israelis have about 4 operational KC-707s, which would also be used and provide an additional 12 strike/CAP aircraft. This force is not enough to take out enough of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, but will set it back several years. My guess is since the KC-135 is the more capable tanker, they would be used for the strike aircraft while the KC-707s would be used for the CAP aircraft, since the strike aircraft would require a lot more fuel. Israel has about 25 F-15Is, as well as more than 100 GBU-28 bunker busters capable of penetrating about 30m (100') of dirt/rocks, or up to 8m (25') of steel rebar reinforced concrete, and has a glide range of more than 9 km (5 nm) and weigh in at about 5000 lbs (2268 kg). Each F-15I can carry 2 GBU-28s (these things are 25' long), and like all F-15s has the M-61 Vulcan cannon, which would most likely be loaded with M-56A3/A4 rounds (anti personnel and anti aircraft) for a mission like this.

But, if the USAF were to use KC-135s to help the IDF strike force, they might as well join the strike and CAP packages, too. The USAF has more aircraft, and could supplement the Israeli CAP with F-15Cs and F-16Es (additional CAP could also be provided by USN F/A-18E/Fs from CVNs in the gulf, if needed), maybe even F-22s, and supplement the strike package with B-2As ( carrying GBU-57 or GBU-28s), B-1Bs, and F-15Es, as well as more KC-135s and perhaps E-3s, E-8s, and RC-135s.

But the US will have to weigh any participation against what Iran's response would be. Clearly they will try to close the Strits of Hormoz, at a minimum.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11108 times:

Here is the range circles for the IDF F-15I;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/...ilitary/ops/images/swa-map1.gif|||


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11065 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
But, if the USAF were to use KC-135s to help the IDF strike force, they might as well join the strike and CAP packages, too

I don't think a combined US/Israeli strike is politically feasible. It won't happen.

I like the KC-135 idea, but instead we should SELL the Isaelis 10 of them for $1 each. That would send a strong message to Iran and instantly give Israel the strategic reach to strike Iran repeatedly. I'm sure Israeli aircrews could figure them out pretty quickly.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10826 times:

A while back, there was a program to modify the port underwing drop tank with a probe for refueling for the F-16. There was also a modification to install a probe into the port CFT on the F-16 as well. In both cases these were retractable.

Suppose either of these solutions were available. How far could, say, an F-15I with max gas drag an F-16I being its buddy tanker?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10578 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 11):
How far could, say, an F-15I with max gas drag an F-16I being its buddy tanker?

Fighters use as buddy tankers are not very useful in long range missions, they simply don't carry enough fuel. With FAST Pak CFTs (750 gallons each) and 3 X 300 gallon external fuel tanks, plus internal fuel a F-15 can carry a maximum of 51,775 lbs of fuel. Of course as a buddy tanker it would be less than that as the centerline external fuel tank would have to be the buddy refueling pod, so the total fuel on board drops to 49,735 lbs. In this configueration the "F-15 Tanker" would be burning a lot of gas for itself. My rough numbers say it can fly out as far as 500 nm while refueling the F-16I, with an EAR point at the 500nm point, then return to base, after off-loading about 10,000 lbs of fuel. That would be enough to get the heavy F-16Is to strike their targets, and get out of Iran air spaces, as long as they did not have to use AB to much. The airplanes would probibly run out of fuel over the gulf. then the crews punch out and picked up ('rescued") by USCG or USN warships.

This type of mission does not provide a CAP.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10544 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
My rough numbers say it can fly out as far as 500 nm while refueling the F-16I, with an EAR point at the 500nm point, then return to base, after off-loading about 10,000 lbs of fuel. That would be enough to get the heavy F-16Is to strike their targets, and get out of Iran air spaces, as long as they did not have to use AB to much. The airplanes would probibly run out of fuel over the gulf. then the crews punch out and picked up ('rescued") by USCG or USN warships.

Thanks for the estimates. Looks like we're mixing strategy with a bit of logistics. 500nm based on the GlobalSecurity images would provide for fully tanked F-16s to mid-iraq or SA. What I'm considering is that this may save 2-3 KC-135s worth of tanking while "in the neighborhood" of Israel. The probes could also be used for WARp refuelling, cutting the problem of number of booms available.

What kind of offensive could we therefore put together using these considerations:

F-16I strike package, perhaps 3-6 F-15I hauling bunker busters too
F-15C/I CAP

F-16s refueled via buddy tankers inbound and outbound in 500NM nearest Israel (eliminating need for KC-135s and KC 707 early and late.)
CAP gets 3 dedicated KC-135s, they'll need the booms.
5 remaining KC-707s orbit at 1000nm from Israel to top off on ingress, refuel on egress to get strike package back to buddy tankers.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10475 times:

Don't forget when you install the probe refueling pods on the F-16Is, you loose a hard point and the weapons it can carry. I doubt the F-16I can carry a GBU-28. The weapon is just to big, it is 25' long. The F-15E/I/K/S can carry 2 of them, the B-2A can carry several.

So in my professional opinion, buddy refueling is not the way to plan this mission, use real tankers like the KC-707 and KC-135 and keep it simple s... (KISS theory)

Cargotanker had the best idea yet, sell some KC-135Rs to the IDF for about $1 each, give the Israeli a quicky difference training course to transistion from the KC-707 to the KC-135.

But, no matter what happens the Iranians will blame the US and Israel. They may also blame the French and British. At the very least they will place mines in the Strait of Hormuz to try to stop the flow of oil to the rest of the world. That brings in the USN and RN into the mix.


User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10429 times:

A real quick and dirty line on the map shows that about 3/4 of Iran is north of a line from Israel to the southern border of Kuwait. So most of the nuclear sites are probably in the area that would require flying through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Since Iraqi currently has Cessna Caravans as it's air force that leaves Jordan with any ability to intercept. What happens to the plan if the tankers orbit over Iraq? Whose is going to shoot them down?
That avoids any interaction with the Saudis. Would Jordan want a nuclear Iran in the neighborhood?
How much deniability would the US have to 10-15 135s that were on a training mission over Iraq when Iran got bombed?


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10423 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 15):
How much deniability would the US have to 10-15 135s that were on a training mission over Iraq when Iran got bombed?

Depends, how many EA-6Bs and EA-18Gs can you spare. If enough, the response would be "We were never there".



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2328 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10398 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 10):
I'm sure Israeli aircrews could figure them out pretty quickly.

Hell, if I could learn to fly them... 



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10384 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 15):
Since Iraqi currently has Cessna Caravans as it's air force that leaves Jordan with any ability to intercept. What happens to the plan if the tankers orbit over Iraq? Whose is going to shoot them down?

Even if they couldn't, if Israeli jets were passing eastbound through their airspace, Iraq would certainly give early warning to Iran.

[Edited 2012-02-13 19:53:05]

User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10367 times:

I will point out to everyone that you are assuming best case scenario's for maximum range and weapons payload... and anytime you strap on bombs and missiles, you take a hit in maximum range due to parasitic drag.

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10269 times:

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 18):
Even if they couldn't, if Israeli jets were passing eastbound through their airspace, Iraq would certainly give early warning to Iran.

I doubt that. Iraq still isn't the greatest fan of Iran. There would need to be some severe jamming, since Iran's radar coverage does not end at its border.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10041 times:

War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10036 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 20):
I doubt that. Iraq still isn't the greatest fan of Iran. There would need to be some severe jamming, since Iran's radar coverage does not end at its border.

Not at all. Iraq has almost no capability to keep Israel from using their airspace as a point of transit to Iran. Israel has far bigger problems if they want to attack Iran. Most importantly an attack like that is at the edge of the range of their F-15s and F-16s. Hence the discussion about tankers. Iran learned from the Iraq strike and scattered their nuclear facilities around the country rather than putting them in a convenient, lone, above ground location.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10035 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.

Iran will be quickly put down much like Iraq was. I don't think the Iranian people are opposed to regime change, the ignorant fools running the country need to go. Cut throat. Iran has everything to be a leading middle-east power economically, but the morons in charge are holding them back, threatening Israel and the US into a suicidal war. Anyone who openly threatens another country with extinction through nuclear or other means needs to be removed. Permanently.


User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7632 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9955 times:

Everyone expected to be welcomed into Baghdad as a liberator as well.

How many troops did the UK/US lose there?.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9977 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 17):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 10):
I'm sure Israeli aircrews could figure them out pretty quickly.

Hell, if I could learn to fly them...

Me too!!!!, I'd go in a New York minute. Hey, IDF are you listening? Retired KC-135 Instructor Boom Operator available, Former CCTS Instructor at Castle AFB, lives in Fort Worth.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.

Can we afford Iran with nukes and controlled by unstable mad-men?

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 24):
Everyone expected to be welcomed into Baghdad as a liberator as well.

We were, and so weren't the British troops in Basara, at least for the first year or so.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9400 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 24):
How many troops did the UK/US lose there?.

The US lost 4,487 of our finest people.

The UK lost 179 of your finest people.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9475 times:

Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineantidote From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9450 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.

Yeah, time for a group reread of Addicted to War by Joel Andreas. It's an easy enough read - it's in comic format.


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4552 posts, RR: 19
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9420 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Fighters use as buddy tankers are not very useful in long range missions, they simply don't carry enough fuel. With FAST Pak CFTs (750 gallons each) and 3 X 300 gallon external fuel tanks, plus internal fuel a F-15 can carry a maximum of 51,775 lbs of fuel

That's pretty impressive, it carry's almost as much fuel as a B727-200 !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9422 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 29):

That's pretty impressive, it carry's almost as much fuel as a B727-200 !

It should be noted that it is extremely rare for a F-15E to have 3 external drop tanks and 2 CFT's. For long missions CFT's and two external drop tanks are used.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9251 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 24):
Everyone expected to be welcomed into Baghdad as a liberator as well.

How many troops did the UK/US lose there?.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.
Quoting antidote (Reply 28):
Yeah, time for a group reread of Addicted to War by Joel Andreas. It's an easy enough read - it's in comic format.

Nice comments fellas, we're all blown away by how ridiculous you've made us look as we consider the options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with how you would deal with the FACT that Iran will have nuclear weapons, and will continue to build more and more, in the near future. And their leader publically states that he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map'. What do you suggest? Read a comic book? Cross our fingers and hope that a few hundred thousand Israelis don't disappear in a flash? I'd really like to hear your solutions, because it seems like the world is running out of peaceful options, and I don't think Israel has any reason to feel safe hoping that Iran suddenly becomes very peaceful.


User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7632 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9140 times:

Firstly, regime change, with or without US/UK boots on the ground is a lot more problematic that many, (including many of our leaders think).

Iraq surely shows just how screwed up things can very rapidly get if you do no plan for all eventualities.

Even Libya, which had no US/UK boots on the ground, (at least officially) is clearly very unstable.

I am making no statement against regime change per se, although who decides that a regime should be changed is always a moot point. My point is that regime change should be the last option, and thought needs to be given to "What happens after the old regime is gone".

Secondly, is it possible that he wants Nuclear power to generate energy. Many countries use Nuclear power, even those who have Oil/Gas.

Finally, the assumption that Iran would use Nuclear weapons, is presumably based on the assumption that Iran thinks that Israel has'nt already got them.


User currently offlineantidote From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9011 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 31):
Nice comments fellas, we're all blown away by how ridiculous you've made us look as we consider the options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Most of us come here because we share an interest in military aviation and comments in the threads are generally thoughtful and well-considered. This thread, in particular, has very informed conjecture on a possible strike. Posts that show unrestrained glee at the prospect of another conflict, though, just don’t add imo to the otherwise professional context of the thread. I appreciate your point, though, that neither do glib dismissals.


User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1843 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 8932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.

Professional discussion is one thing, actual excitement at the prospect is out of place and jingoistic.

Quoting antidote (Reply 33):
Posts that show unrestrained glee at the prospect of another conflict, though, just don’t add imo to the otherwise professional context of the thread.

IMO too many people seem to ready to attack Iran. "Oh no they want nukes" The Iranians are not stupid. They want to survive and launching a nuke at Israel is a quick way to kill yourself off.

Relevant questions:
Can the IDF successfully attack Iran?
Do they need additional tankers?
What strike package could they use?
What precautions can Iran take?
What routes make most sense?
How much deniability can the IDF or the US achieve?
What obstacles can other regional nations offer?
What regional reaction can we expect?

Non-relevant/Inflammatory:
"Yee hay!"
"Sign me up for the attack"
"Lets kick some rag head ass"
"Cant wait to see this happen"
"This has to happen"
"Who cares what the UN thinks"


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 35, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8791 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 31):
Nice comments fellas, we're all blown away by how ridiculous you've made us look as we consider the options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Quoting antidote (Reply 33):
Most of us come here because we share an interest in military aviation and comments in the threads are generally thoughtful and well-considered. This thread, in particular, has very informed conjecture on a possible strike. Posts that show unrestrained glee at the prospect of another conflict, though, just don’t add imo to the otherwise professional context of the thread. I appreciate your point, though, that neither do glib dismissals.

cargotanker, they just don't understand that the threat of a rogue regime having nuclear weapons isn't just their ability to detonate an airburst 3,000 feet over some city, or a smuggled suitcase bomb detonating on city streets, but it is more importantly the EMP threat. If Iran could detonate a single 500 kt weapon about 300 miles above North America or Europe it will put us all back into the stone age. No modern conveniences will work because the electric grids are fried. Since most p[eople are not farmers, they will soon starve to death. There will be caos in the streets and people shooting each other for a can of beans. Over NA, power will be lost in all of the US, Canada, and Mexico. Over Europe the EU will cease to exsist.

They also don't understand that the military hates war more than anyone.

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 34):
"Lets kick some rag head ass"

Most Persans don't wear turbans, neither do the North Koreans.


User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1843 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Me too!!!!, I'd go in a New York minute. Hey, IDF are you listening? Retired KC-135 Instructor Boom Operator available,
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

They also don't understand that the military hates war more than anyone.

You must have been frapped!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Most Persans don't wear turbans, neither do the North Koreans.

And Iranian's aren't Arabs either, yeah I have read things that contain facts,
.....unlike most political affairs commentators on Fox news.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8722 times:

Iraq was quickly put down? That's hilarious...mission accomplished, eh? Over 4000 dead Americans is quickly put down? With military planning like that, they'd end up with a bunch of lost wars...oh yah...they did.

Just like every other country on the planet that has ever been attacked, no matter what they think of their government, they will band together long enough to fight an external enemy.

Every intelligence agency in the US says Iran is not attempting to build nukes and haven't since 2003.

I'm curious, since I doubt anyone in here will actually be any closer to the front lines than their tv, how many American dead and wounded justify an attack on Iran? How many billions of dollars spent?

Unlike Iraq, Iran has designed their entire military for exactly this scenario. Iran will not attack so any war will be started by Israel and the US...a preemptive war just like the Japanese attack on Pearl. They thought the war was justified too....but these are just dirty damned Muslims...they are probably terrorists and deserve to die anyway, right?

How many actual service personnel are itching for a war? The intelligence professionals aren't. The military brass isn't. Even the former head of Mossad said attacking Iran was the stupidest thing he's ever heard.

Not a single estimate of any amount of attacks on Iran slow down their nuke program by more than a year. They also all agree that if attacked, Iran will build a bomb.

Yet so many seemed thrilled to have more of their fighting men and women killed in another insane war....and countless Iranians.

So far, regime change in Iraq has swapped one murderous president for a murderous vice president, just arrested for at least 150 death squad murders. Corruption is rampant and they suffer almost daily car bombs. The US is officially in peace talks with the Taliban, the folks the regime was so keen on getting rid of...and they'll be back running Kabul even while the US troops are still training, what will be, the new Taliban army...and funded by 90% of the global opium trade...which didn't exist until after the invasion...so the war has not resulted in regime change, it has resulted in a new industry for the old regime...and they get to supply poison to the western world as a bonus.

So what precedent leads so many to believe that Iran won't be able to mount an effective defense and retaliation? Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. Bombed back to the stone age? They did that twice...but still lost thousands of the best men and women...done with stone age weapons...after the mission was supposedly accomplished.

Iran has hundreds of missiles which can reach anywhere in the middle east. They have at least 50 thousand rockets in Lebanon and Syria. They have supersonic anti ship missiles, which are almost impossible to defend against. They have super cavitating torpedoes capable of speeds of 200 miles per hour...which are almost impossible to defend against. They have thousands of anti aircraft rockets and radar guided AA guns.

They don't have to close Hormuz...they just have to shoot one tanker then the insurance will be pulled and all tanker traffic stops...with little more than a threat. Oil rose 10 bucks a barrel on Iran cutting off almost no oil to the UK and France...what happens if all oil stops from the Gulf?

Ironically, the US is directly responsible for the current Iranian regime. When the democratically elected Iranian government attempted to get more than 10% for the oil in their country, the US and UK deposed the elected president, and put in the dictator Shah. He was such a brutal, corrupt tyrant that the Iranians preferred the strict religious rule of the Ayatollah to US instituted Shah.

A lot like the Mujaheddin were armed by the US to fight the Soviets, and turned into the Taliban, which helped Osama plan and carry out 9/11. The US paid for and armed Saddam's Iraq in their losing war with Iran. Just over a decade later, they started a war to get rid of him.

Remember the Iran/Contra scandal when the US gave Iran money and weapons...with the help of Israel?

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/BOOK3Ch7.html

Libya is free of Qaddafi, so now death squads rule huge swaths of the country.

That's what regime change gets you.



What the...?
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8679 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Israel has about 25 F-15Is

That makes an Israeli strike out of the question. For a country the size of Iran, 25 F-15 will cause minimal damage, even if none get shot down, which I think some would. And in return.....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
But, no matter what happens the Iranians will blame the US and Israel.

Exactly. Not only that, but Iran would rain hell on Israel with their missiles and would cause damage on Israel far out of porportion ti any damage Israel inflicts on Iran. As to the US, who gives Israel the money to even contemplate such things? If Israel received no US money, what would the Israeli military strength be? The world knows this and is uneasy with it. How many UN security Council resolutions against Israel have not passed because only the US vetoed it? All this is highly visible.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 16):
Depends, how many EA-6Bs and EA-18Gs can you spare. If enough, the response would be "We were never there".

Well, nobody would believe it, if Israeli fighters flew impossible distances, well beyond their own tankering capability, people would just assume the US was the helping hand, true or not.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 31):
how you would deal with the FACT that Iran will have nuclear weapons

Whoa there cowboy. There were no WMDs in Iraq either, were there? Or are we still looking? Saddam was also supposedly pursuing a nuclear weapon, just ask W. Bush, Cheney or Condalezza Rice. Specifically here, what you stated as "FACT", is 100% contradicted by US Intelligence.


One way to guarantee that Iran will militarize it's nuclear program is to attack Iran.


http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-us-intelligence-207/



[Edited 2012-02-25 05:02:39]


[Edited 2012-02-25 05:11:08]

[Edited 2012-02-25 05:11:53]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 39, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8658 times:

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Most Persans don't wear turbans, neither do the North Koreans.

And Iranian's aren't Arabs either, yeah I have read things that contain facts,
.....unlike most political affairs commentators on Fox news.

Yes, Iranians (Persans) are not Arabs.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Iraq was quickly put down? That's hilarious...mission accomplished, eh? Over 4000 dead Americans is quickly put down? With military planning like that, they'd end up with a bunch of lost wars...oh yah...they did.

Yes, the uniformed Iraqi military forces were quickly put down. It was uncoordinated insurgent forces that caused the trouble after Iraq fell.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Not a single estimate of any amount of attacks on Iran slow down their nuke program by more than a year.

It worked in 1982 when Israel attacked the nuke plant in Iraq, and again in Syria in 2009.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
funded by 90% of the global opium trade...which didn't exist until after the invasion...

Just ignor the facts, Joe. The opium production has florished in Afghanistan since the 1979 invasion by the Soviet Union. Warloards found they could use it as a source on money to fight the Soviets. By the early 1990s, opium production in Afghanistan out produced the so called "golden triangle" countries of Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, and Loas. Afghanistan is part of the "golden crescent' which includes opium production in Pakistan and Iran, and has been producing opium since at least the 1920s. Other major producers are Columbia and Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HeroinWorld-en.svg

But there wouldn't be a global production of opium if it were not for the heroin junkies and opium den smokers. There were at least two wars fought in China due to the "recreational use" in China.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
JoeCanuck
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
tommytoyz

It is clear both of you are against any action to end/eliminate further expansion of nukes in the world. Part of me wants to commend you for that, and part of me wants to remind you that world is a very dangerous place to live, and always has been. It is unfortunate we cannot trust each other and have to resort to some type of military action to restore peace. But that is the world we live in. Brutal regimes throughout the world do not compromise with those of us who just want peace, they see that as a weakness they can easily rule over. So, we should never stick our head in the sand.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 40, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8628 times:

Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. No single strike is going to take out Iranian nuclear sites. Even the Israelis admit it won't slow them down by more than a couple of years at most.

Their sites are scattered and well buried, not above ground and not ripe, easy targets for Israeli fighters. They are heavily defended with layers of missiles.

Israel doesn't have big enough bunker busters to get most of the sites and even the best US ones can't get them all...but the US will be in the battle so they will be retaliatory targets.

There is no such thing in law as a preemtive self defense attack. I thought he was going to bomb me so I bombed him back first doesn't fly with the Geneva conventions.

An undeclared first strike is an act of war, is murder, plain and simple, no different than what the Japanese did at Pearl, and the Iranians will have every right under international law to retaliate, just as the US did after Pearl. Unlike Iraq, the US will not get UN approval for this war.

Iran has enough anti ship missiles to overwhelm naval defenses and will hit some ships and US sailors will die...there's no way to tell how many but the number will be significantly higher than zero. They can also hit Israel and US assets in the region and may even conduct terror campaigns in the US. It only took a couple of redneck yokels to pull off Oklahoma city.

Only a fool underestimates the enemy and he's a greater fool if he doesn't expect that some of his troops will die. Every person who calls for war should remember that...especially since those calling for war won't be doing the dying.

There was not a single confirmed kill of an Iraqi mobile scud launcher in the first Iraq war...and they hid in the desert. Iran is mountains, valleys, forests, caves, coves and a million other places to hide their very mobile launchers. No matter how many drones they have, it will be impossible to find all of the launchers.

So what I am is realistic. There will be no sunday afternoon drive, shock and awe victory. Americans will die, Israelis will die and Iranians will die. How many more dead men and women does the US want to fly into Dover at night? More billions will be spent on another war that will accomplish nothing. Within 2 years at the most, Iran will be repaired, they will tear up the NPT, so there will be zero oversight of their nuclear program, they will be buried much too deep for any conventional weapon and they will go for the bomb.

Every US intelligence agency says Iran is NOT researching or building a bomb. If attacked, that will change.

As for the opium, production increased every year after the US invasion, to annual levels greater than any year under the Taliban.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan



What the...?
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8565 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
It is clear both of you are against any action to end/eliminate further expansion of nukes in the world.

KC135TopBoom:

I respect your views here on A.net. But please understand me: I am not against taking action to stop a threat by nuclear weapons or stop their proliferation - by any means necessary. And we've already started doing that with respect to Iran. May countries have already put in real economic sanctions against Iran as a warning to not militarize their nuke program, not just the U.S. If the U.S. or anyone else is to go in militarily, guns blazing and kill people - one thing has to be 100% rock solid and certain:

That a military threat actually exists or is imminent - by whatever nuke program is being blamed and targeted.

If we are not certain, we can not go in there, guns blazing.

The Israelis themselves alone can not pull this off with their aircraft against a country that lies beyond the borders of Iraq, and is larger than the countries of Spain, France and Germany - combined. Israeli aircraft would have to spend more time in Iranian airspace than anywhere else, such are the distances.

I would presume the Israeli fighters would need refueling inside Iranian airspace. I don't think the tankers would be able to go in there and come back alive and once the Israeli fighters have shot all their air to air missiles, they'd be sitting ducks. It would be the first F-4 kills (or whatever they have) against the F-15.

[Edited 2012-02-25 13:29:36]

User currently offlineantidote From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8505 times:

During the Six Day War, the Israeli's apparently bombed southern Egyptian targets out of normal range of their Sud Aviation Vatour fighter-bombers by flying them there and back on one engine to extend their range. The first question is whether or not this was just an apocryphical story and the second is whether it could be duplicated today in an F15?

User currently offlineantidote From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8447 times:

Actually had some time to check on the supposed single engine Vatour attack on Luxor and/or Ras Banas - it's a slow night on the Left Coast. Apart from posted references similar to mine above, the flight time of the missions seems to line up with the range/normal speed of the aircraft, although there is a reference in IAF records of one Vatour pilot returning from Luxor on one engine. My best guess is urban myth unless someone knows differently. Which probably makes my question of whether a fully loaded F15 could increase its range by flying on one engine a bit academic. Carry on!

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8444 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
It is clear both of you are against any action to end/eliminate further expansion of nukes in the world. Part of me wants to commend you for that, and part of me wants to remind you that world is a very dangerous place to live, and always has been. It is unfortunate we cannot trust each other and have to resort to some type of military action to restore peace. But that is the world we live in. Brutal regimes throughout the world do not compromise with those of us who just want peace, they see that as a weakness they can easily rule over. So, we should never stick our head in the sand.

This assumes that the only two options are a pre-emptive strike or Iran with the bomb. Right now, this is a false dichotomy. It might not be in the future, but until it is, we shouldn't be too happy to jump in.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 45, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8348 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 44):
Newark727

That only leaves the option of Iran striking someone first. For most of us that is not a viable option.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
tommytoyz

Not quite. The tankers will not have to enter Iranian airspace. If they did, they would need a dedicated CAP as well as AWACS, and most probibly some jammers. Of course that involves even more airplanes.

We are talking about a max of 10-12 target areas, where research and production is done. The latest bunker buster/penetrating bombs are more than adaquite to do the job. The objective would be to totally destroy these facilities and equipment/production, along with killing the scientists/researchers and save computer data.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Iran has hundreds of missiles which can reach anywhere in the middle east. They have at least 50 thousand rockets in Lebanon and Syria. They have supersonic anti ship missiles, which are almost impossible to defend against. They have super cavitating torpedoes capable of speeds of 200 miles per hour...which are almost impossible to defend against. They have thousands of anti aircraft rockets and radar guided AA guns

Yes, Iran has all of those. But that does not mean we are completely defenseless against such weapons. For example those supercavitating torpedos (Iran calls it the "HOOT", which in Persian means "whale") have very significant limitations. 1. once fired, they are not contrilled and have no, if any self manuverability. 2. they are extremely range limited (the Russian VA-111 has a max range of just 13 km), making the launch vessel vunable to ASuW or ASW. 3. they have very small convential warheads (these are not nukes), with a max warhead on the VA-111 about 210 kg (about 460 lbs). So an Iranian "HOOT" fired at a US warship at max range needs 78 seconds to reach the warship, not including the time needed to accelerate to 360 khp. This gives the USN warship plenty of time to manuver out of the path of the torpedo. Also do not underestimate the fact the USN most likely has defensive systems to defeat such a torpedo. The same with an SS-ASM. CIWS is designed to work against approaching targets at almost any speed between about 50 knots to 3.0M. I'm not to concerned about radar controlled air defenses as these radars would be taken out as soon as they illuminate with systems like HARM and AARGM. My guess is there will also be the use of JSOW for targets within an area that is too heaverily defended.

But, I agree with you, any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will not be a walk in the park for the attackers. There will be very significant and capable SAR Forces standing by in case they are needed.

I also agree the best option for all sides is for Iran to completely give up on their nuclear weapons program. Lybia did that back in early 2003.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 46, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8152 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):

But, I agree with you, any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will not be a walk in the park for the attackers. There will be very significant and capable SAR Forces standing by in case they are needed.

I also agree the best option for all sides is for Iran to completely give up on their nuclear weapons program. Lybia did that back in early 2003.

It is supreme hubris to assume that they will take out all defenses quick or ever, and I bet none of the military commanders and planners are making that assumption. These men and women know that arrogance can get their own people killed. The only people assuming the Iranians are toothless are those not responsible for putting people into harms' way or the ones put in harm's way.


Every US intelligence agency has agrees that Iran gave up any nuclear weapons program in 2003 and haven't restarted it. The IAEA has stated that there is no missing uranium which could have been diverted to any weapons program.

Parchin was already inspected in Nov 2011 and the 'suspicious' container was already debunked by former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley as being completely inadequate for nuclear research. Parchin isn't even an area with any nuclear reactors or materials, so technically, the IAEA has no authorization to even be there.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7597

Every location of Iran's nuclear program is under constant surveillance 24/7 and there is a complete record of all uranium. Under the NPT, Iran has the right to civilian nuclear power and to enrich uranium to the levels they are currently achieving.



The hoot can be launched by surface craft, subs or air. It may travel in a straight line but it still has to be dealt with, the same time as incoming missiles and probably artillery. If they can get within 6km, the travel time is cut in half, leaving 30 or 40 seconds to react. If nothing can get through, why do fire drills? I can bet the military commanders aren't assuming none of their people will die.

The more stuff they shoot at a ship, the better the chance of a hit...and they have a lot of stuff. It doesn't have to sink a ship...if it can poke a hole in it, that's one ship out of action and more ships required to escort it out of harms way and protect it.

And tankers aren't nearly as maneuverable as warships.

The US didn't confirm a single mobile scud launcher kill in the first Iraq war. Regardless of the capability of HARM systems, radar technology has advanced as well and Iran has lots of hiding places.

So the question remains, how many deaths of US fighting men and women do you think justify an attack Iran? How many dead Iranians justify it? What if they can't get all the nuclear facilities? How many deaths satisfy the thirst for war?

Nobody who's calling for war seems willing to answer these questions which should be answered before anybody starts a war.

If the shooting starts, it won't end any sooner than the last two wars did, which were started with the same justification, were supposed to be over in a few months, the people were going to support the invaders and they'd be happy with the US installed regime.

All that was wrong...none of that came to fruition and look at the cost. How many people died because of wrong assumptions? If the US and Israel attack and kill Iranians, is it acceptable if Iranians kill Americans, like the US did to Japan after Pearl? Under international law, they are justified to defend themselves and retaliate.



What the...?
User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Every intelligence agency in the US says Iran is not attempting to build nukes and haven't since 2003.

The IAEA report of Nov 2011 differs with yours which noted numerous breaches with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The EU imposed sanctions on Iran in Dec 2011 due to its interference with IAEA inspectors and the its pursuit of military purposes for its nuclear program. What about the five UN security council resolutions levied against Iran for its failure to comply with IAEA inspections and the NPT? The NIE report which you are probably referring to was from 2009, things have changed since then. Answer me one question: why does Iran enrich and stockpile uranium fuel enriched to 20% (weapons quality) when only 5% is required for power plants?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
Whoa there cowboy. There were no WMDs in Iraq either, were there? Or are we still looking? Saddam was also supposedly pursuing a nuclear weapon, just ask W. Bush, Cheney or Condalezza Rice. Specifically here, what you stated as "FACT", is 100% contradicted by US Intelligence

Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the lead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again? Just last week the director of NIE and director of CIA stated that they believed Iran was building the components of a nuclear weapon, but not yet assembling them to form a weapon. One incredibly stupid war doesn't mean we should never fight again.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
There is no such thing in law as a preemtive self defense attack. I thought he was going to bomb me so I bombed him back first doesn't fly with the Geneva conventions.

Ooohhh. Better tell Israel, they'll be so embarrassed for bombing the Osirak reactor in 1982 and the Syrian reactor in 2007. If Israel violates the mighty Geneva conventions the whole world might hate them....oh wait they already do. And why can't Israel attack Iran in retaliation for its arming of Hezbollah and all of those rockets that get shot at its cities?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
It is supreme hubris to assume that they will take out all defenses quick or ever, and I bet none of the military commanders and planners are making that assumption

Yes, supreme hubris based on the successes of Desert Storm, Kosovo, OEF, OIF, the Libya raid, Bekaa valley that repeatedly show that well fought air campaigns can be incredibly successful against third world countries.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
If we are not certain, we can not go in there, guns blazing.

100% certainty is not possible. Israel did this in 1982 and 2007, guns blazing and bombs dropping, what moral hazard prevents them from doing this now?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
The US didn't confirm a single mobile scud launcher kill in the first Iraq war. .

Relevance to anything in the discussion? Desert Storm was a masterful air campaign that led to a lopsided defeat of the then 4th largest army in the world.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
So the question remains, how many deaths of US fighting men and women do you think justify an attack Iran?

The precise number is 137.5. Israelis are worth less so they can have up to 473 killed. Any higher and the operation is a total failure.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
How many dead Iranians justify it?

Iranians, worth even less than Israelis, 1,360, give or take a few.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
How many deaths satisfy the thirst for war?

How many non-Americans are on the planet? Add in the baby seals, whales and pandas and I'll be happy. (typed in the font of Sarcasm, no one freak out please)

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
If the shooting starts, it won't end any sooner than the last two wars did, which were started with the same justification, were supposed to be over in a few months, the people were going to support the invaders and they'd be happy with the US installed regime.

Afghanistan was not started with the same justification, not even close. The length of time of Iraq and Afghanistan are a result of NATION BUILDING efforts that are incredibly difficult and I think will be ultimately unsuccessful. Most on this forum aren't calling for regime change and an invasion, they're calling for a series of air and missile strikes aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities with the intention of halting or delaying the manufacture and production of nuclear weapons, with enough extra damage thrown in to make the Iranians seriously reconsider further attempts. This is possible. This has been done in the past and while Iran might make it a little more difficult they would not prove much of a challenge to a US led coalition effort. It gets a lot trickier for Israel to do this on its own, but they've proven to be very tricky warfighters in the past.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7997 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
There were no WMDs in Iraq either, were there? Or are we still looking? Saddam was also supposedly pursuing a nuclear weapon, just ask W. Bush, Cheney or Condalezza Rice. Specifically here, what you stated as "FACT", is 100% contradicted by US Intelligence
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
Every US intelligence agency says Iran is NOT researching or building a bomb.

The two of you are contradicting yourselves in each of your posts by claiming that 1) US intelligence got it wrong about WMDs in Iraq and 2) US intelligence is now correct about nuclear weapons in Iran. Which one is it?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7597

The Real News? Seriously? They have an entire tab dedicated to the Occupy Wall Street movement. That article was not accurate. Is this where you go for news?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. No single strike is going to take out Iranian nuclear sites. Even the Israelis admit it won't slow them down by more than a couple of years at most.

GOOD! That's the whole point. That means a couple of years that Israel doesn't have to stare down the barrel of a nuclear gun. Israel should keep slowing them down. Use computer viruses, kill their engineers, plant bombs at their nuclear plants, do everything they can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Act like their lives depend on it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-us-intelligence-207/

Are you serious? This is a Russian news site. Is this where you go for news?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7967 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
The tankers will not have to enter Iranian airspace. If they did, they would need a dedicated CAP as well as AWACS, and most probibly some jammers. Of course that involves even more airplanes.

We are talking about a max of 10-12 target areas, where research and production is done.

I only looked on the map and saw thw extreme size of Iran. Makes Iraq look very small. In order to really tell if F-15s would have to be tankeres by dedicated tankers or not in Iranian airspace, we would have to know where in Iran the targets are located and measure the distances. Remember, Iran is bigger than Spain, France and Germany - combined.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the lead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again?

Many, even in the U.S. intelligence agencies got it right, or at least shed enough doubt on WMD or the threat and even W. Bush's source of info, which were ignored and shouted down or redacted by those who had made up their mind as to the "reality" - The Neocons and Bush.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
100% certainty is not possible. Israel did this in 1982 and 2007, guns blazing and bombs dropping, what moral hazard prevents them from doing this now?

You do not know the degree of certainty the Israelis had. Moral hazard? If I have to explain this to you....Remember the millions marching in the streets around the world protesting the U.S. bombing of Iraq?


Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Iranians, worth even less than Israelis, 1,360, give or take a few.

This shows your frame of mind and pretty much why you are OK with bombing Iran and your lack of any feeling of morality. Very sad. You also forget the price to the U.S., even if Israel went it alone, much less if we are involved.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 48):
The two of you are contradicting yourselves in each of your posts by claiming that 1) US intelligence got it wrong about WMDs in Iraq and 2) US intelligence is now correct about nuclear weapons in Iran. Which one is it?

I have NEVER said the US intelligence got it right or wrong in any previous post regarding the W. Bush war on Iraq. W.Bush, Cheney, and Condi are not U.S. Intelligence - they are U.S. stupidity who ignored information that did not fit into their preconceived notions.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7946 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 48):

GOOD! That's the whole point. That means a couple of years that Israel doesn't have to stare down the barrel of a nuclear gun.

Which begs the question of the ultimate end state following an Israeli strike. You seem to accept the assumption that the nuclear program can't be completely destroyed militarily. If that's so, and Israel strikes anyway, that still leaves Iran trying to acquire a bomb- in fact, makes it all but certain, if it's demonstrated to them that they really are under as much threat as they think they are. Whatever military endeavor Israel used to hinder the bomb would have to be repeated again and again. Isn't "Israel in perpetual warfare" the situation we're trying to avoid here?


User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7955 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the

Let us be honest! They did not "get it wrong"! The US, UK, and Israel simple lied about the WMDs while Russia and the others went along for benefits or because they had no other options. Probably, they all knew that Iraq had no deployable WMD (or WMD at all). Why? Because you do not attack a country which has WMD-s, you negotiate with it. For example, the US attacked Afganistan because the taliban hid OBL, but when he was killed in Pakistan, after living for years next to a prominent military academy, nobody talked about invading Pakistan. Why? Maybe, because Pakistan DO HAVE WMDs.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
ead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again?

Is it normal where you work to give a second/third/fourth chance to someone who "got it wrong"? Without suffering any consequences?

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Most on this forum aren't calling for regime change and an invasion, they're calling for a series of air and missile strikes aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities with the intention of halting or delaying the manufacture and production of nuclear weapons, with enough extra damage thrown in to make the Iranians seriously reconsider further attempts. This is possible.

Maybe. My problem with people who thinks like this, especially if s/he is higher in the food-chain, is that they cannot even imagine that such plan can fail. They may talk about it to appear educated but they do not consider it as a real option. Unfortunately if that failure comes we will have a lots of "madmen", madmen with possible nuke at hand, and that scares me.


User currently offlineskysurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 52, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7919 times:

This was on the BBC front page today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643

Slightly off topic but they also ran a piece on if the British could defend the Falklands if anyone is interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

Stu



In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 53, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7921 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
Every location of Iran's nuclear program is under constant surveillance 24/7

Good, then Iran will have video tapes of their facilities going BOOM.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
The US didn't confirm a single mobile scud launcher kill in the first Iraq war. Regardless of the capability of HARM systems, radar technology has advanced as well and Iran has lots of hiding places.

It is here you show your ignorence of how military forces, and their systems work and what we do for each mission. HARM systems go after radars that are illuminated, not after a truck carrying an IRBM hiding in a cave in the deserts of Iraq.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
The tankers will not have to enter Iranian airspace. If they did, they would need a dedicated CAP as well as AWACS, and most probibly some jammers. Of course that involves even more airplanes.

We are talking about a max of 10-12 target areas, where research and production is done.

I only looked on the map and saw thw extreme size of Iran. Makes Iraq look very small. In order to really tell if F-15s would have to be tankeres by dedicated tankers or not in Iranian airspace, we would have to know where in Iran the targets are located and measure the distances. Remember, Iran is bigger than Spain, France and Germany - combined.

Do you know your geography? Iran is the 18th largest country on Earth, at some 1.65M km2. Spain has some 505K km2, Germany is some 400K km2, and France is some 755K km2, for a total area (of Spain, Germany, and France), 1.66M km2. So these 3 EU countries work out to be the same size as Iran.

About 70% of Iran is within 1000 nm of TLV (and all but one nuke facility), The F-15I has a combat radious range of 1800 nm, with two fuel tanks, CFTs, and 10,400 kg of external ordinence. To assure the strike package has enough fuel to jank and bank, and go fast in the target areas until they get feet wet, they will need one pre-strike and one post-strike refueling. BTW, with 1 pre-strike refueling the F-15I now has 100% of the Iranian land mass within its combat range.

TLV%0D%0A&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=" target="_blank">http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=&...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

TLV-THR is only aboiut 850 nm, and Qom, which has the Fordow undeclared underground uranium enrichment facility is just south of THR. The Natanz underground enrichment facility is only about 8 m underground with some 2.5 m thick reinforced concrete walls. Here is a nice picture for ypu of the target area at Natanz:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.72....01,0.01&t=h&q=33.723453,51.727097

The two targets at Qom (Fordow 1 & 2):
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.88...pn=0.3,0.3&t=h&q=34.88459,50.99596

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.94...pn=0.3,0.3&t=h&q=34.94373,50.76056

Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC):
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.73...pn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=35.7384,51.3882

There are a total of 17 or 18 nuclear facilities in Iran, but only about 10-12 are thought to be involved in military nuclear programs. The rest are waste facilities or connected with electric generation through nuclear energy and do not have to be targeted.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the lead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again?

Many, even in the U.S. intelligence agencies got it right, or at least shed enough doubt on WMD or the threat and even W. Bush's source of info, which were ignored and shouted down or redacted by those who had made up their mind as to the "reality" - The Neocons and Bush.

Oh, I get it now, "its Bush's fault"........get real

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Iranians, worth even less than Israelis, 1,360, give or take a few.

This shows your frame of mind and pretty much why you are OK with bombing Iran and your lack of any feeling of morality. Very sad. You also forget the price to the U.S., even if Israel went it alone, much less if we are involved.

When computing the estimated COST OF WAR, enemy personnel, equipment, and facilities are always a lower value. But targetting them makes them "HIGH VALUE TARGETS" to reduce the threat to allied personnel equipment and facilities.

In laymans trems this means YOUR stuff is more valuable then THEIR stuff and it is cheaper to take out THEIR stuff than it is to have to REPLACE your stuff.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
I have NEVER said the US intelligence got it right or wrong in any previous post regarding the W. Bush war on Iraq. W.Bush, Cheney, and Condi are not U.S. Intelligence - they are U.S. stupidity who ignored information that did not fit into their preconceived notions.

This has been a paid political announcement, and I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message

Quoting magyar (Reply 51):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the

Let us be honest! They did not "get it wrong"! The US, UK, and Israel simple lied about the WMDs while Russia and the others went along for benefits or because they had no other options.

magyar, Israeli Intellegence was NOT INVOLVED in collecting data on WMDs in Iraq. Most of the information came from French and Russian Intel sources, and WMDs were found in Iraq, just not as many as should have been there. Many feel those weapons were buried in the deserts of Syria, which may be used in the up-riasings now in that country.

No one LIED, nor did they get it wrong.

Quoting magyar (Reply 51):
My problem with people who thinks like this, especially if s/he is higher in the food-chain, is that they cannot even imagine that such plan can fail. They may talk about it to appear educated but they do not consider it as a real option. Unfortunately if that failure comes we will have a lots of "madmen", madmen with possible nuke at hand, and that scares me.

Failure is never a planning option. It is always a possibility. You may be given Iran more military credit than they deserve, and not enough credit to US and Israeli military forces. Don't forget this is the same Iranian Military Force that fought Iraqi Military Forces to a stalemate after 8 years of fighting. That very same Iraqi military was totally defeated by the US and UK in about 3 weeks.


User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7887 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
magyar, Israeli Intellegence was NOT INVOLVED in collecting data on WMDs in Iraq. Most of the information came from French and Russian Intel sources, and WMDs were found in Iraq, just not as many as should have been there. Many feel those weapons were buried in the deserts of Syria, which may be used in the up-riasings now in that country.

No one LIED, nor did they get it wrong.

Hmm NO. NO WMD were found in Iraq. ZERO.

The french obviously didnt belive in WMD and the idea that the so called smoking gun ie material from Niger should have been smoking feels ridiculous at best. The French clearly knew that no material from Niger were involved. They more or less run Niger so...
If nothing else read the CIAs final report on it. NOT one single WMD were ever found in Iraq.

The reason; there never were any WMD in Iraq in the first place.

The problem with Iraq today is that they are extremelly cozy to Iran. Their relationshop is like Israel and the US.
When an administration goes to war without any idea what to do when they have rolled into a country its scary and shows complete lack of intellectual planning. When they get surprised and say we won the war but didnt plan for low intensity guerilla conflicts you just wonder what planet they come from.

I have news for you lot. The low intensity warfare seen in Iraq will be nothing compared to the low intensity warfare that we will see in iran if groundtropps ever set foot there.

In regards to Iran, we better strike. iran with nuclear warheads isnt a good idea.
people often wonder what drives the Iranians. Look to religion, a belief that the mehdi will return and a shia islamic wold will appear when the shiites are worthy of it. How to argue with fact when a man is driven by that...
The world is better wothout a Iran with nukes.
problem is bombings woint solve it to destroy those facilities we will need soldiers on the ground doing the dirty deeds. A raid and with big, big air support. Israel is brave and has some of the best special forces around but they cant handle that.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7790 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Oh, I get it now, "its Bush's fault"........get real

Of course it is. Who else is responsible then? Please do tell once and for all!

Bush made the first, the middle and the final decision to plan and go in.

Many allies were not in agreement Iraq was a threat and disagreed there was credible proof there were WMDs. The Germans under Schroeder was adamantly against and refused to send any support, the French likewise - hence Freedom Fries and wrath against the Germans.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Do you know your geography? Iran is the 18th largest country on Earth, at some 1.65M km2

That's right.

Germany: 357,021 km2
France: 674,843 km2
Spain: 504,030 km2
Total: 1,535,894

Iran: 1,648,195 km2

Iran is bigger by 112,301km2. I don't know why argue against the truth. For what reason?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Most of the information came from French and Russian Intel sources,

Is that why the French did not concur with the Bush cabinet and those in the capital ended up eating Freedom Fries instead or French Fries, in anger against the French for expressing their honest views?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
About 70% of Iran is within 1000 nm of TLV (and all but one nuke facility), The F-15I has a combat radious range of 1800 nm, with two fuel tanks, CFTs, and 10,400 kg of external ordinence. To assure the strike package has enough fuel to jank and bank, and go fast in the target areas until they get feet wet, they will need one pre-strike and one post-strike refueling. BTW, with 1 pre-strike refueling the F-15I now has 100% of the Iranian land mass within its combat range.
OK. Good points. Over what country would they need to refuel? What if the Iranians went after the tankers and fleeing fighters outside Iranian borders, like Iraqi or other airspace?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Don't forget this is the same Iranian Military Force that fought Iraqi Military Forces to a stalemate after 8 years of fighting.

That was a long time ago. We need to operate in reality, not comparing the Iran of decades ago. I'm no Iran Expert, but from what I hear, I don't think you can fly a handful of F-15s across Iran safely. Answer me this:

Even if every F-15 missile scores a perfect hit, what happens when they run out of missiles? Secondly, how many missiles do you think each can carry to begin with, since they are loaded to the gills with fuel and bombs? I think it's safe to say Iran has more fighters than Israel can carry missiles. The stage is yours.....

[Edited 2012-02-28 02:50:26]

[Edited 2012-02-28 02:51:55]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7719 times:

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 54):
If nothing else read the CIAs final report on it. NOT one single WMD were ever found in Iraq.

The reason; there never were any WMD in Iraq in the first place.

No, it is now know the WMDs were relocated to other countries, most likely Syria.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 54):
The problem with Iraq today is that they are extremelly cozy to Iran.

That's because Iran needs Iraq to serve as an air defense buffer zone against a possible Israeli attack. Iran will have to fly into Iraqi airspace as Iraq doesn't have a significant Air Force, yet.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 54):
In regards to Iran, we better strike. iran with nuclear warheads isnt a good idea.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 54):
The world is better wothout a Iran with nukes.
problem is bombings woint solve it to destroy those facilities we will need soldiers on the ground doing the dirty deeds. A raid and with big, big air support. Israel is brave and has some of the best special forces around but they cant handle that.

I totally agree.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Oh, I get it now, "its Bush's fault"........get real


Of course it is. Who else is responsible then? Please do tell once and for all!

Bush made the first, the middle and the final decision to plan and go in.

He made the decision based on the best available information back in 2002, and you know that. The horrors of 9/11 were still fresh in everyone's mind throughout 2002 and well into 2006.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the lead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again?

Many, even in the U.S. intelligence agencies got it right, or at least shed enough doubt on WMD or the threat and even W. Bush's source of info, which were ignored and shouted down or redacted by those who had made up their mind as to the "reality" - The Neocons and Bush.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
About 70% of Iran is within 1000 nm of TLV (and all but one nuke facility), The F-15I has a combat radious range of 1800 nm, with two fuel tanks, CFTs, and 10,400 kg of external ordinence. To assure the strike package has enough fuel to jank and bank, and go fast in the target areas until they get feet wet, they will need one pre-strike and one post-strike refueling. BTW, with 1 pre-strike refueling the F-15I now has 100% of the Iranian land mass within its combat range.
OK. Good points. Over what country would they need to refuel? What if the Iranians went after the tankers and fleeing fighters outside Iranian borders, like Iraqi or other airspace?
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
That was a long time ago. We need to operate in reality, not comparing the Iran of decades ago. I'm no Iran Expert, but from what I hear, I don't think you can fly a handful of F-15s across Iran safely. Answer me this:

Even if every F-15 missile scores a perfect hit, what happens when they run out of missiles? Secondly, how many missiles do you think each can carry to begin with, since they are loaded to the gills with fuel and bombs? I think it's safe to say Iran has more fighters than Israel can carry missiles. The stage is yours.....

The Iranian military has not had any significant combat experience in 24 years, since 1988, the end of the Iraqi/Iranian War. Irag, OTOH, went into combat in 1990-1991, against the no fly zone operations 1992-2000, and again in 2002.

The IRIAF claims to have 300 fighter, interceptor, attack, and ground attack aircraft operational. These include Iraqi aircraft flown into Iran during the Gulf War in 1991. They include the F-14, F-4, F-5, F-7M, Su-24, Su-25, Mig-29, and Mirage F-1. The IRIAF has no operational AWACS capability, except for the capability of the F-14As. They do have up to 15 tanker aircraft, 10 KC-707-3J9C and 5 KC-747-100F that they MIGHT be able to use. I don't know exactly how many tankers they actually have operational, but I do know they have at least a few.

The F-15C/D carries up to 8 AAMs, and the F-15E/I can carry up to 4 AAMs. The F-15A/B/C/D has a perfect kill/loss ratio with 104 confirmed kills and ZERO losses. The IDFAF has at least 58 F-15A/B/C/Ds in service, and another 25 F-15Is. The F-16s can carry up to 6 AAMs, and Israel has 223 F-16A/B/C/Ds and another 100 F-16Is. Don't forget, the attacking packages will have at least one G-550 AWACS from Israel, as well as their RC-12K and B-707 ELINT/EW/SIGNET. Israel is also thought to have an unknown number of tactical UAVs.

If the USAF and USN get involved, then it is game over for Iran's nuke program, their Air Force, and their Navy because of the assets the US can bring to the fight.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7673 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
Many, even in the U.S. intelligence agencies got it right, or at least shed enough doubt on WMD or the threat and even W. Bush's source of info, which were ignored and shouted down or redacted by those who had made up their mind as to the "reality" - The Neocons and Bush.

I'm not holding any water for Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld, but they didn't dream up Iraqi WMDs on their own. The CIA under Clinton/Gore toed the same line, Clinton's policy w/ Iraq was regime change and Clinton launched air raids on Iraq when Saddam prevented UN inspectors access to certain suspected WMD sites. The overwhelming majority of the CIA and the world's intelligence communities thought Iraq had (active development and stockpiled) WMD in the lead up to OIF. (Topboom: Iraq had some stuff left over from pre-1991 but that wasn't much of a threat to anybody, we'll probably differ on this one) They were wrong. What about the multiple UNSCRs against Iraq and its productrion of WMDs prior to the Bush administration? How was Bush able to trick and bully the UN and President Clinton when he was only the governor of Texas??? Anybody got an answer? Tommytoyz?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
I have NEVER said the US intelligence got it right or wrong in any previous post regarding the W. Bush war on Iraq. W.Bush, Cheney, and Condi are not U.S. Intelligence - they are U.S. stupidity who ignored information that did not fit into their preconceived notions

Every one of Bush's statements was backed up with CIA sources and analysis. Same with Colin Powell's before the UN.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
In order to really tell if F-15s would have to be tankeres by dedicated tankers or not in Iranian airspace, we would have to know where in Iran the targets are located and measure the distances

Thanks, we'll keep that in mind.  
Quoting skysurfer (Reply 52):
This was on the BBC front page today.

Thank you for providing an informative article from a reputable source.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 50):
Isn't "Israel in perpetual warfare" the situation we're trying to avoid here?

I think Israel already is in perpetual warfare. The situation we're trying to avoid is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv sometime in the next decade.

Quoting magyar (Reply 51):
They may talk about it to appear educated but they do not consider it as a real option. Unfortunately if that failure comes we will have

Magyar I understood very little of your post. Not sure what you're getting at.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
This shows your frame of mind and pretty much why you are OK with bombing Iran and your lack of any feeling of morality. Very sad. You also forget the price to the U.S., even if Israel went it alone, much less if we are involved.

It was all a joke, and a very obvious one. Did you read where I mentioned pandas?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
It is here you show your ignorence of how military forces, and their systems work and what we do for each mission. HARM systems go after radars that are illuminated, not after a truck carrying an IRBM hiding in a cave in the deserts of Iraq.

That's the way it reads to me and it does show a very profound ignorance.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
The stage is yours.....

You act like you just posted some amazing piece of knowledge. I'd get laughed out of Air War college with 'analysis' like yours. You do realize that you are a Los Angeles realtor/glider pilot addressing military professionals with over 40 years of combined military experience? I'm not telling you to shut up, but a little humility when you're swimming in the deep end of your military knowledge would be a good idea.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 58, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7598 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):
No, it is now know the WMDs were relocated to other countries, most likely Syria.

Sorry, but you are rewriting history. This is just one quick link I found, there are tons of others using Google.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.

................

The report resolves disputes about allegations made prior to the U.S. invasion:

• Aluminum tubes that the Bush administration alleged were for nuclear weapons production were, in fact, for making conventional artillery rockets.

• Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas.

• The team found no evidence that Iraq was developing biological weapons trailers or rail cars. Two trailers found after the war were for producing hydrogen gas for weather balloons.

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," a report summary says. "Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam.


Got it? This is the official report commissioned by the Bush White House. It is what it is, like it or not.

Now please do answer this simple question, without equivocating as you did before:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
Even if every F-15 missile scores a perfect hit, what happens when they run out of missiles? Secondly, how many missiles do you think each can carry to begin with
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 57):
The situation we're trying to avoid is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv sometime in the next decade.

One way to guarantee that hundreds of Iranian missiles will rain on Tel Aviv is to do an attack as discussed in this thread. Secondly, it would guarantee that Iran would militarize their nuke program. Thirdly, you do know your geography, so do you really think Iran would use nukes on Israel, with all the Arab neighbors? Israel is tiny. There is no way to limit the nuclear fallout to within Israel. It wold be insane. Egypt, Gaza and West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea - at the very least - would all get nuclear contamination and easily more including Iran itself. Not only that, but all the countries in the world would immediately pounce on Iran and hang the government.

It would not be accepted.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 57):
It was all a joke, and a very obvious one. Did you read where I mentioned pandas?

I take you at your word. However, your Panda reference was not referencing your statements that Iranians were worth less.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 57):
You act like you just posted some amazing piece of knowledge. I'd get laughed out of Air War college with 'analysis' like yours. You do realize that you are a Los Angeles realtor/glider pilot addressing military professionals with over 40 years of combined military experience? I'm not telling you to shut up, but a little humility when you're swimming in the deep end of your military knowledge would be a good idea.

How about just answering the question? It's always a BS flag for me, when simple questions get equivocated, or the questioner acts insulted by the question, rather than answering it in a straight forward manner, especially by people who say they know. Again:

What happens once the F-15s run out of missiles and how many can they carry on such a mission? Thank you.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 59, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7563 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):
No, it is now know the WMDs were relocated to other countries, most likely Syria.

Sorry, but you are rewriting history. This is just one quick link I found, there are tons of others using Google.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...x.htm
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Got it? This is the official report commissioned by the Bush White House. It is what it is, like it or not.

Then explain the 155mm and 203mm artillery shells found in June 2006 that had residue of mustard and sarin gas? Explain these Iraqi incidents of CW use;

Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988August 1983: Haij Umran — Mustard , fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
October–November 1983: Panjwin — Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
February–March 1984: Majnoon Island — Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties
March 1984: al-Basrah — Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties
March 1985: Hawizah Marsh — Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties
February 1986: al-Faw — Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties
December 1986: Um ar-Rasas — Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties
April 1987: al-Basrah — Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties
October 1987: Sumar/Mehran — Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties
March 1988: Halabjah & Kurdish area — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties
April 1988: al-Faw — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties
May 1988: Fish Lake — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
June 1988: Majnoon Island — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
July 1988: South-central border — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties

On March 17, 1988, the Halabja tragedy occurred. The Iraqi army hit residential areas with sarin gas and the roads leading out of the city with mustard gas the day after. Most of the victims died within minutes after bombing and those who survived and tried to leave the city the following day were injured when passed contaminated roads. Civilians in residential areas in western Iran such as Noodsheh, Ghaleji, and Marivan were bombarded with nerve gas as well. The efforts of local health care centers played a significant role in decreasing the number of mortalities.

Use in Southern Iraq against the Popular Uprising, 1991March 1991: an-Najaf - Karbala area — Nerve agent & CS, Shi’a casualties not known.

According to Iraq itself, it consumed almost 19,500 chemical bombs, over 54,000 chemical artillery shells and 27,000 short-range chemical rockets between 1983 and 1988. Iraq declared it consumed about 1,800 tons of mustard gas, 140 tons of Tabun, and over 600 tons of Sarin. Almost two-thirds of the CW weapons were used in the last 18 months of the war.

Explain why Iraq itself claims it destroyed its WMD/CW in Sept 2009.

I have not rewritten history, I lived it. I was in Desert Storm.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Now please do answer this simple question, without equivocating as you did before:

I answered as much as I'm going to. I will not say what possible tactics can or will be used.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
One way to guarantee that hundreds of Iranian missiles will rain on Tel Aviv is to do an attack as discussed in this thread. Secondly, it would guarantee that Iran would militarize their nuke program. Thirdly, you do know your geography, so do you really think Iran would use nukes on Israel, with all the Arab neighbors? Israel is tiny. There is no way to limit the nuclear fallout to within Israel. It wold be insane. Egypt, Gaza and West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea - at the very least - would all get nuclear contamination and easily more including Iran itself. Not only that, but all the countries in the world would immediately pounce on Iran and hang the government.

Once Iran has destroyed Tel Aviv, as you insist, why would hundreds of more missiles continue to fall on that city?

Do you really believe the Iranian government is concerned about the welfare of its Arab (or Palistinian) neighbors? If you do, you have no idea of how todays real world works. Iran lost an estimated 500,000, or more in the Iran-Iraq War (Iraq lost an estiminated 400,000). Iran didn't care one bit about that. At least Iraq built a war memorial to their war dead, Iran did nothing. We are talking about two different and diametricly opposed sects with Islam, the Shia, which Iran mostly is, and the Sunni, which most Arabs are.

It must be really nice to live in such a nieve world while the rest of us have to live with reality.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
What happens once the F-15s run out of missiles and how many can they carry on such a mission? Thank you.

I answered as much as I'm going to. I will not say what possible tactics can or will be used.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 60, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7539 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988August 1983

Everything you talk about regarding Iraq's WMD/CW in that post, is in a different era and time and predates the invasion ordered by W. Bush and the time period covered in the report I cited by 10-15 years. If you want to disprove the report I mentioned, talk about the same time frame at least. The issue is did Iraq have WMD in 2001 or not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
I answered as much as I'm going to. I will not say what possible tactics can or will be used.

I think it may be because it's obvious what the answer is: If Israel goes in alone, their F-15s will eventually all be sitting ducks. And if Iran goes after them and the tankers, by say, following the fighters outside Iranian airspace to the tankers they're all toast. The Israei AF would be wiped out. They are limited by the number of A2A missiles they can bring into the theater, no matter how they do it and that is limited to a number that is too low. The Israelis can not pull this off without U.S. backing. No way.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
Once Iran has destroyed Tel Aviv, as you insist, why would hundreds of more missiles continue to fall on that city?

Reading comprehension: I clearly separate the two as in, first and, second. Do not lump together. Let me clarify again: FIRST, Tel Aviv would receive retaliation from Iran via a rain of Iranian rockets. SECONDLY, the nuclear issue.

What I do think, is that Iran knows that if they use nuclear weapons against Israel, that they would sign their own swift death. The world would not stand for it and Iran knowns this. Israel has nuclear weapons, why don't they just nuke Iran? Answer: Because Israel knows the world would not stand for it and the U.S, wouldn't be able to save them from the global wrath if Israel did this.

[Edited 2012-02-28 17:21:10]

[Edited 2012-02-28 17:23:03]

User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7517 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
There is no way to limit the nuclear fallout to within Israel.

You need to study up on the effects of fallout from a single nuclear warhead. It isnt that much, especially for a more primitive weapon that Iran would use.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Not only that, but all the countries in the world would immediately pounce on Iran and hang the government.

I bet Iran's leaders don't really care. Plus they can always arm Hezbollah with a nuke once they start producing them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
What happens once the F-15s run out of missiles and how many can they carry on such a mission? Thank you.

Same thing that happened on the Osirak and Syrian raids.

I'm really wasting my time, but here goes: You see that Iran has about 300 fighters, you therefore assume that an Israeli raid must shoot them all down when they strike against Iranian nuclear facilities? That's the logic that you're using, you've stated it multiple times. Now let me explain a few things:

What percentage of those 300 aircraft are mission capable on a daily basis in a nation like Iran that has had some form of sanctions imposed against it for over 40 years? I bet its around 40%, and I'm being generous. That brings us down to 120 fighters capable of flying on a given day.

Now, what percentage of those 120 fighters are constantly on alert, fueled, armed, with a pilot nearby, ready to respond to an air raid? Alert is an expensive and time consuming process, being generous again I'd say no more than 20 Iranian fighters are capable of taking off within 15 minutes of any air raid warning.

Iran is a big country, as you've noticed, how many of those 20 fighters will be within intercept range of the Israeli raid once they take off? Half? We're now down to ten fighters.

How many of those ten primitive fighters flown by ten poorly trained pilots will be able to intercept the Israeli strike force? And when they get there, they'll be facing F-15Cs flown by the best, most experienced pilots in the world equipped with the latest Python and AMRAAM missiles. Do you really think the Iranians can fight at night?

The big worry for Israel is SAMs, which Iran has a lot more capability in. Israel is aware of this.

Why on earth do you think that Iran is capable of mounting a short notice counter strike on Israeli tankers??? They won't even know where the tankers are, they'll be too busy trying to deal with the Israeli raid.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
How about just answering the question? It's always a BS flag for me,

How's the BS flag doing now? I still have some questions for you to answer.

If, as you have stated, Iran is only pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, why do they continue to enrich uranium to weapons grade and stockpile it? Why are they building enrichment facilities and heavy water reactors and bury them deep underground like no other nation on earth? Why choose the most expensive way to provide energy to its country when it has large amounts of cheap oil? And the kicker: If, as you have stated, George W Bush was solely responsible for all of the claims about WMD, why did then-President Bill Clinton and the UN make the same statements about Iraq and WMD before George W Bush became President?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 60):
I think it may be because it's obvious what the answer is: If Israel goes in alone, their F-15s will eventually all be sitting ducks. And if Iran goes after them and the tankers, by say, following the fighters outside Iranian airspace to the tankers they're all toast. The Israei AF would be wiped out. They are limited by the number of A2A missiles they can bring into the theater, no matter how they do it and that is limited to a number that is too low.

No, not even close.

[Edited 2012-02-28 19:30:26]

User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7512 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):

No, it is now know the WMDs were relocated to other countries, most likely Syria.

Sorry but there is not one single piece of evidence suggesting that.
Saddam didnt have WMD:s thats why no one found any. And since the Bush administration had a lot of prestige riding on it its not because of lack of effort. they sure loooked just wasnt any there.

the Syria idea is just clutching at straws and more a hope than backed up by a single piece of evidence.

lets remind ourselves that the smoking gun was from Niger...
Niger didnt export any components.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 63, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7487 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 61):
I bet Iran's leaders don't really care.

I bet they do care about not ending their own lives and Iran as we know it.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 61):
f, as you have stated, Iran is only pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, why do they continue to enrich uranium to weapons grade and stockpile it?

I have not made such a statement. Read through all my posts if you like. I don't know why people see things that are not there. I have quoted U.S. intelligence reports and I concur on this - there is enough evidence to attack Iran. They are not about to assemble a bomb tomorrow. though if Israel bombs them, they get to it as soon as they can though.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 61):
If, as you have stated, George W Bush was solely responsible for all of the claims about WMD, why did then-President Bill Clinton and the UN make the same statements about Iraq and WMD before George W Bush became President?

I have not stated what you attribute to me. God please read and comprehend. I stated W. Bush is responsible for the decision to go to war with Iraq. I also stated he and his cabinet refused to listen to anything that did not fit their preconceived ideas. INcluding the French and German arguments. The forged yellow cake letter also failed to drive home the message that the information they were relying on was perhaps questionable. I did not state that W. Bush "was solely responsible for all of the claims about WMD" - rubbish.

Please stop saying I made statements, which in fact, I never made. Thank you.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 61):
why did then-President Bill Clinton and the UN make the same statements about Iraq and WMD before George W Bush became President?

They did not make those statements about WMD in Iraq referring to the 2001 time period and the dangers of mushroom clouds because of them. The statements they did make referring to WMDs in Iraq refer to prior to 2001.

And the statements were not identical. If they had been, Clinton would have had to go in and take them out, which he did once with cruise missiles - but that was way before 2001. His later statements were far less alarmist.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 61):
And when they get there, they'll be facing F-15Cs flown by the best, most experienced pilots in the world equipped with the latest Python and AMRAAM missiles. Do you really think the Iranians can fight at night?

I have no idea. I think the F-14s can easily fight at night and have long range missiles and radar. When it's beyond visual range, it makes little difference, I would assume, day or night. Thanks for answering at least 1/2 the question. At least that. the other half: How many missiles do you think Israel would be able to schlep along? My guess is, not many.

Talking to military guys like yourselves makes me glad that the military is UNDER civilian leadership.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7483 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 61):
You need to study up on the effects of fallout from a single nuclear warhead

Are you disagreeing with me and saying that the nuclear fallout could be contained within Israel? Just want to clarify what you are saying.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 65, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7392 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 60):
The issue is did Iraq have WMD in 2001 or not.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 60):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
I answered as much as I'm going to. I will not say what possible tactics can or will be used.

I think it may be because it's obvious what the answer is: If Israel goes in alone, their F-15s will eventually all be sitting ducks. And if Iran goes after them and the tankers, by say, following the fighters outside Iranian airspace to the tankers they're all toast. The Israei AF would be wiped out. They are limited by the number of A2A missiles they can bring into the theater, no matter how they do it and that is limited to a number that is too low. The Israelis can not pull this off without U.S. backing. No way.

I suggest you read UN Resolutions #;
1441
1373
1284
986
715
707
688
687
686
678
661
660

BTW, they were all Unanimously Adopted by the UN Security Council.

Believe what you want of the capabilities of the IDF-AF

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
I have quoted U.S. intelligence reports and I concur on this

The CIA will be very happy and relieved you concur, but I don't think the DIA will be happy with you.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 62):
MillwallSean
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
tommytoyz

Well, since you guys are the real experts here, I suggest you both get jobs with the Israeli and/or US governments so you will have more influence about future events.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
My guess is, not many.

A guess from someone with no real knowledge about what he is talking about.......


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7366 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
A guess from someone with no real knowledge about what he is talking about.......

Timmytoyz will stop responding once he is "correct". Your opinion is always incorrect, regardless of how much facts you have. Somehow civilians think they know more about military tactics through all the "insider" info they have.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Thirdly, you do know your geography, so do you really think Iran would use nukes on Israel, with all the Arab neighbors?

Yes. Iran is just as stupid as they are crazy. You think Iran really cares about those other countries? Their whole purpose in life is to destroy Israel and as soon as they get a nuclear weapon it will be too late.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Egypt, Gaza and West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea - at the very least -

Iran doesn't care about them.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7353 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
I suggest you read UN Resolutions #;
1441

I suggest you read them too. They do not say what W.Bush and Cheney claimed about WMD in Iraq in 2001. U.N. 1441 demanded inspections and Iraqi cooperation with the inspections. If W. Bush had actually allowed Blix (Weapons inspector) to do his job, an invasion would not have been necessary.

Back on topic, if Israel use the F-16is in the mission, then they may be able to bring a good number of A2A with them. But then the bottleneck becomes the tankers, they only have 4 low performance ones. How many planes can Israel refuel on such a mission with the 4 measly KC707s? That would be the limiting factor on how many planes could do the mission and how many A2A missiles could be carried. Without outside assistance, those 4 tankers alone are not enough to refuel a large fleet on such a mission, or am I wrong?


User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Here is an interesting article from NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/wo...h=B91C0F29BD08608F789AD834105E42A7


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7255 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 69):
Here is an interesting article from NYTimes:

Yeah, I read that.

There is also this;

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fd386...8e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1nnHR12pB

and this;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s/2012/02/24/gIQAzWaghR_story.html

Here is a little, though not very accruate info on two possible targets, and some weapons that could possibly be used against them;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...2012/02/28/gIQAjbeDhR_graphic.html


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"By Americans, For Americans" Claim On Eads Web posted Thu Jun 10 2010 10:56:14 by eksath
Good Day For Mil Av On Saturday Locally posted Sun Mar 21 2010 19:01:00 by HaveBlue
2 A330 Tankers For Saudi AF posted Mon Feb 12 2007 14:37:35 by Breiz
Bush Rejected Israeli Plan To Strike Iran... posted Thu Sep 25 2008 20:37:09 by AirRyan
Israeli Air Force Preparing For Iran Mission posted Sat Apr 28 2007 18:48:28 by RJpieces
Looking For Info On The Boeing Skyfox posted Thu Apr 28 2011 13:33:38 by Wingscrubber
RAF Flyby On Friday For Royal Wedding posted Wed Apr 27 2011 11:50:18 by LGWflyer
KC-X Wait For 787/350 Possible? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 12:22:40 by andyDTWnwa7
New RAF Tankers Unfit For War Zones Per Audit posted Tue Mar 30 2010 05:47:21 by Lumberton
National Audit Office Report On UK Tankers posted Tue Mar 30 2010 04:24:09 by Bongodog1964

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format