US officials: Israeli attack on Iran requires 100 planes

[hoepoe]

Very interesting article.

"In New York Times article, military analysts describe hurdles Israel will face if it decides to strike nuclear sites. 'It ain’t going to be that easy,' one of them says"

"According to the report, Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task."

Read the entire article, some very good points made but the bottom line is that alone, Israel simply does not have the capabilities...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...192055,00.html

H

[mark46th]

I wonder what makes people think Israel has to use air strikes to accomplish this mission. A few smart, motivated and dedicated people could probably do it... MOO

[scooter]

I would like to see the math that led to the 100 planes declaration. I wonder if it could be done with 50 with twice the time, or if 100 is a no shit limit based on METT-T. As far as overflight rights, I doubt that would be an issue, all of Iran's neighbors are scared to death and want Israel or the US to strike.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by hoepoe

.........Read the entire article, some very good points made but the bottom line is that alone, Israel simply does not have the capabilities...............

Yeah, that's just what Idi Amin thought.

[The Reaper]

As an Army guy, my knowledge of this is limited, but the following points occur to me. This op is going to be radically different from the previous strikes on Osirak and the Syrian reactor. Huge difference between attacking your neighbor, and someone across the city.

There is an old saying about striking not with a half-hearted blow. If we are going to war, make it worth it so that we do not merely irritate our opponent and have to do this again in three or four years.

Step One is going to have to be suppression of enemy air defenses. That will require quite a few planes to accomplish. If it were me, I would want a joint cruise missile and air delivered ordnance strike package, perhaps coordinated with SOF missions. This SEAD may also require boots on the ground to assist. These nuclear targets and supporting infrastructure are not all in one unprotected, surface-level basket. There are a lot of hardened deeply buried targets which are well defended and scattered across a lot of territory. You will need multiple SEAD, EW, Strike, CAP, SAR, tanker and possibly ground packages to successfully accomplish this mission.

They are also going to need EW platforms to jam enemy electronic defenses.

IMHO, they are going to have to have tanker support to get there, accomplish the mission, and return, since I do not see any area countries alllowing them to land and refuel. I don't think the Israelis have the tankers to support the strike packages required.

Next, this job is going to require a cap of fighters to defend the bomb carriers. More planes, and more tankers to support them.

They are going to need AWACS or the equivalent, before, during, and after the mission.

You are going to have to have SAR resources. That means rotary wing and a way to get them there and back.

Finally, this mission will require pinpoint delivery of some very specialized ordnance. This is going to require pilot skills, which the Izzies may have, but also weapons that have the ability to attack hardened deeply buried targets. If they do not have the latest versions of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and a system to carry them, there are several targets that will not be able to be touched directly. Our AF has only a few of these in the inventory, and I do not think the Israelis have a platform that can deliver them. This might also require ground parties to conduct pre-strike reconaissance, especially of the mobile assets that you are targeting. Can you get them in and out without airlift? Maybe.

If you are the Israelis, are you going to conduct a high-profile offensive operation that many miles from home with the majority of your AF involved? Obviously, that would be a great time for one (or more) of the unfriendly neighbors to conduct a few strikes of their own. You have to run a cap, or at least retain sufficient resources at home to defend and perhaps deliver weapons to other targets. You have to mobilize your entire AF to do all of this, and given the flight time to the target, that would be a helluva signature in advance. This is going to involve either shooting your way through several countries' airspace, or getting permission. Either is going to involve substantial risk of compromise. A force which has friendly relations with Iraq, Kuwait, or Saudi, or launching from the Persian Gulf does not, however.

Frankly, running this op with only 100 planes flying out of Israel strikes me as inadequate and unlikely.

IMHO, the Israelis cannot pull this off without significant assistance. I wonder who that could be?

I believe that we can accomplish this mission. The real questions are whether we have the balls and can live with the consequences. The worse Obama's poll number and the closer we get to the election, the more likely this becomes. Wag the dog, take credit for any successes, blame the failures on someone else.

TR

[grigori]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

As an Army guy, my knowledge of this is limited, but the following points occur to me. This op is going to be radically different from the previous strikes on Osirak and the Syrian reactor. Huge difference between attacking your neighbor, and someone across the city.

There is an old saying about striking not with a half-hearted blow. If we are going to war, make it worth it so that we do not merely irritate our opponent and have to do this again in three or four years.

Step One is going to have to be suppression of enemy air defenses. That will require quite a few planes to accomplish. If it were me, I would want a joint cruise missile and air delivered ordnance strike package. This may also require boots on the ground to assist.

They are going to need EW platforms to jam enemy electronic defenses.

IMHO, they are going to have to have tanker support to get there, accomplish the mission, and return, since I do not see any area countries alllowing them to land and refuel. I don't think the Israelis have the tankers to support the strike packages required.

Next, this job is going to require a cap of fighters to defend the bomb carriers. More planes, and more tankers to support them.

They are going to need AWACS or the equivalent, before, during, and after the mission.

You are going to have to have SAR resources. That means rotary wing and a way to get them there and back.

Finally, this mission will require pinpoint delivery of some very specialized ordnance. This is going to require pilot skills, which the Izzies may have, but also weapons that have the ability to attack hardened deeply buried targets. If they do not have the latest versions of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and a system to carry them, there are several targets that will not be able to be touched directly. Our AF has only a few of these in the inventory, and I do not think the Israelis have a platform that can deliver them. This might also require ground parties to conduct pre-strike reconaissance, especially of the mobile assets that you are targeting. Can you get them in and out without airlift? Maybe.

If you are the Israelis, are you going to conduct a high-profile offensive operation that many miles from home with the majority of your AF involved? Obviously, that would be a great time for one (or more) of the unfriendly neighbors to conduct a few strikes of their own. You have to run a cap, or at least retain sufficient resources at home to defend and perhaps deliver weapons to other targets. You have to mobilize your entire AF to do all of this, and given the flight time to the target, that would be a helluva signature in advance.

Frankly, running this op with only 100 planes strikes me as inadequate.

IMHO, the Israelis cannot pull this off without significant assistance. I wonder who that could be?

TR

I liked the points you have made sir,I have two questions:

1)So can Israel tackle Iran alone?

2)If they do opt for Air Strikes will they need assistance from the Carrier Battle Groups of the US Navy?

Regards.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by grigori

I liked the points you have made sir,I have two questions:

1)So can Israel tackle Iran alone?

2)If they do opt for Air Strikes will they need assistance from the Carrier Battle Groups of the US Navy?

Regards.

1. Sure, if the mission statement is limited enough and they can figure out how to get there, refuel, and get home.

2. That depends on what we wish to accomplish.

What is the mission statement for this op?

TR

[Pete]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

...........You are going to have to have SAR resources. That means rotary wing and a way to get them there and back........

Very few countries have spare pilots out in the hallway and I'm sure Israel does not have many, if any, spares.

But SAR is not a must have for the operation if you feel your country is at risk.

I think that one would be chalked up in the very, very, very nice to have side of the board.

[scooter]

The problem is that the administration does not get the only vote on the issue. If the Israelis decide that it is important enough, they will do it alone. The Iranians have already said that they will retaliate against the US if Israel does this. We have asked the Isrealis not to do anything without talking to us first, but they are losing patience, and the Iranian nuclear program is only months away from being invulnerable to non-nuclear attack.

Obama may get drug into this like or not.

[mugwump]

My guess is we/they are going to think outside the box, e.g. Stuxnet, at least I hope so. If the Israelis genuinely believe this to be an existential threat then everything will come out of the box: a full cyberwar assault on all of Iran's SCADA systems--both infrastructure and dedicated military, deployment of HPM EMP weapons, and the covers pulled off of every EW and embedded human asset available.

But I also wouldn't be surprised to wake up to pictures of radioactive smoke pouring out of tunnels in Natanz and Iran claiming it's all a successful test, praise Allah, of their blast doors, move along, nothing to see here.

There's an awful lot of what sounds like plausible deniability going on by us and the Europeans and the Israelis are talking too much about an airstrike. Seems like a head fake to me.

If they go, it will be the first integrated, next-generation assault and will be the template for future inter-state conflicts. But as they say, beware programmers holding screwdrivers, so what do I know.

[MR2]

Have the Israelis "borrowed" any Harriers?

A couple of freighters could carry helicopters, harriers and enough supplies for a FARP should they decide to "rent" a coastal airbase near the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.

Make it a week long holiday.

Might be expensive - but maybe less than one of Moochelle's vacations...

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by MR2

Have the Israelis "borrowed" any Harriers?

A couple of freighters could carry helicopters, harriers and enough supplies for a FARP should they decide to "rent" a coastal airbase near the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.

Make it a week long holiday.

Might be expensive - but maybe less than one of Moochelle's vacations...

Easier said than done.

MOO: I concur with TR here. This isn't Osirak, there are too many locations to park homing devices next to, and who knows, maybe the Iranians are smart enough to leave the AA radar on during dinner; a "we are serious" hit against Natanz alone isn't going to do it. Then again, Israel has the "chutzpah" to do things that some won't even dream of, time will tell.

Stuxnet is a true piece of work, and Israel is quite capable of pulling something like that off again, however, it would have to be sufficiently able to cripple Iran's nuclear program permanently, a near impossible task for a cyber warfare alone*. IMHO: Some way or another, the US is going to end up in, or over Iran, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia.


*As pessimistic as I am about this country's(and any country's, for that matter) disaster recovery and continuity abilities within technology, most systems are fragmented enough that striking a catastrophic blow is still practically impossible, for now. That said, government mandated operating systems and software do make it easier as you now have standardized target, i.e. China's GreenBow etc. I would not be surprised if Iran has something along those lines...

[akv]

Why do the Israelis need to do anything other than mount some sort of highly visible strike? The Israelis know if they can get the Iranians to fire on US forces as proclaimed, America will go in and do the real job for them. At that point Zero can claim "self defense, surely a regime which would attack US forces unprovoked can't be allowed nukes", even the Libs can't say a thing, and he rides this "tough guy who got UBL and defended us from Iran vibe" all the way to re-election.

The Israelis are very good at looking out for the Israelis, A populist like Obama is emminently predictable, The rub of course is any US servicemen caught in Iranian attacks who pay the price for political expediency.

Frankly, "Alf" over in Iran wants this outcome too, his goal is to stay in power. He knows if he "chirps" too much he will share Saddam's fate. He should be quite willing to give up nuclear power for longevity. Eventually democratic opposition movements in Iran may force him out if left to flourish. What "Alf" needs is a unifying external threat to focus Iranian attention on for the next decade.

So my jaded $.02 all the players involved want the US to take out these sites.

[ECUPirate09]

The worse Obama's poll number and the closer we get to the election, the more likely this becomes.

One professor here at ECU, whose expertise is in elections and campaigning, believed President Obama would launch some sort of strike against Iran no later than October. His reasoning being that it would appease/gather support from the Israel Lobby and help in his re-election.

Another professor (Politics of Terrorism), believed Israel would launch a military strike on Iran before May, and if there isn't one, there won't be one for an extended period of time. I sent her the link to the article and asked her if it changed her opinion.

Eventually democratic opposition movements in Iran may force him out if left to flourish. What "Alf" needs is a unifying external threat to focus Iranian attention on for the next decade.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/bru..._s_future.html

This is from 2009, so some of this person's thoughts might not be pertinent to the discussion today. Seems as though he thinks Iran will move towards democracy and "Alf" won't hold power for much longer (relatively).

Personally, I don't trust math and computers to tell me what humans will do.

[twistedsquid]

israel's 98% success rate in military operations, profound sense of self determination and indifference to international scrutiny and approval will win the day...the nation has the political will and emotional buy in needed to endure...my belief is that the israeli's have developed contingencies for any conceivebale development...the us will be holding them off with a whip and a chair...just like desert storm...