But I'm just an ex-Army chem guy...I'm not a missile, bomb or aircraft expert.
Posted on 03/18/2006 7:47:55 AM PST by Burr5
Many of us on this site are eager to aggressively disassemble the Iranian nuclear program. But we are not confident that it would be easy to do (with conventional weaponry which is, no doubt, the only option being seriously considered).
Some, including myself, initially suggested the wide-spread use of the Massive Ordnance Aerial Burst (MOAB) system, with its 18,000 lbs. of explosives and the 500ft. diameter circle of devastation it leaves in its wake. However, you have to drop a MOAB out of a slow-moving C-130 relatively near the target. A good look at the size of the Iranian nuclear facilities suggests that at least ten of these might be needed to flatten one. And there are many.
Cruise missles, whether Sea-Launched or B-2 borne would be more easily delivered, but FAR greater numbers would be required.
I was an Air Force medical technician, but the only ordnance I learned much about was the kind you might have to remove from one of our guys.
It would be beneficial for a lot of us if the folks around here with real knowledge of our offensive possibilities could chime in.
Wouldn't a a slow-moving C-130 make an easy target itself?
That's my point.
The destruction of ground surface targets is straight forward: Initial strikes blind the radar and destroy air defenses, the enemy air power is annihilated and then the ground surface targets can be destroyed at leisure by either pin-point guided munitions or by B-52 carpet bombings. A MOAB would look more impressive but is not really necessary.
The real dilemma in this air campaign will be the feasibility of destroying hardened, deep below-ground facilities with conventional bunker busters.
Here's the MOAB video link. It's a cool bomb for a war zone- not neccessarily for a sneak attack.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
The video link is half-way down. You'd really need air supremacy to try this in Iran, wouldn't you?
I have NO military expertise.
However, I read novels.
here's the plan........
The military launches a secret attack on an ally in the ME.
Blame it on iran.
Retaliate by destrying everything that moves in iran with nukes.
Problem solved.
Yeah I know, it would never work.
But I'm just an ex-Army chem guy...I'm not a missile, bomb or aircraft expert.
Small, bunker-busting nukes would do them all nicely... but the Dem's & RINO's nixed'em.
So you believe multiple stand-off, long distance strikes after first wiping out the Iranian Air Force would be most effective?
That does take a while. It wouldn't be like the Israelis at Osirak.
That's a great lesson. Any govt. worth attacking is worth removing from power. I hope the Gulf War taught Dubya that.
Perhaps the FIRST strike should be against a full parliament building- or wherever Ragamuffin and his towel-headed puppet-master are known to hang out.
The problem is, all the eggs aren't in one basket.
Crippling the program is a short term solution.
Any bomb that makes a mushroom cloud is alright in my book.
No problem... I didn't mean using ONLY one.
I wasn't too sure about the B-2's ability to accomplish this "conventionally". But this is heartening: it can deliver 8(!) 5,000lb. GBU-37 bunker busters or 80 500lb. GBU-38 J-DAMs.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2.htm
I think that's still a couple of missions per nuke site at least.
No, not "stand-off, long distance strikes".
What I would consider "stand off, long distance" would be a cruise missile attack that delivers a relatively small payload but is relatively immune to anti-aircraft defenses.
After neutralizing air defenses and achieving total air superiority (as was done during the opening phases of the Gulf War and the Iraq War), B-52's can strike with impunity from directly overhead in wave after wave after wave of massive carpet bombing in what World War II bomber crews would call "milk runs".
That does take a while. It wouldn't be like the Israelis at Osirak.
Exactly. It would duplicate the air campaigns of the Gulf War and the Iraq War.
The Israeli Air Force did not have the range and numbers to go toe to toe with the Iraqi Air Force over Iraqi territory. They barely had fuel to fly to Iraq and back.
The Israelis, like the a mongoose raiding a crocodile nest while the Mother Crocodile was taking a nap, had to strike secretly and strike once in order to get away with it.
The United States, however, has air power resources in the theater vastly superior to what Israel had in the 1980's or has now.
The U.S. has no need to sneak around the Mother Crocodile guarding her nuclear eggs. The U.S. can walk right up to the crocodile, blow its brains out, skin it, tan its hide and then make several nice crocodile purses out of it and there is not a damn thing the Iranian crocodile can do about it even if the process takes several weeks.
I've got to say, I like your attitude.
There had better be a lot of air and land defensive assets in place to defend the Iraqi-Iranian border though. A retaliatory ground assault into Iraq by waves of Iranian infantry can't be allowed to upset the delicate political situation the Iraqis are in.
Good luck to us. Thanks for the info everybody.
B-2 don't carry air-launched cruise missiles. MOABs would not be used for any attack on Iranian targets. The delivery vehicle is just far too slow and vulnerable. Think of the use of stealth in the initial strikes backed up by ALCMs. That would just be the start of the campaign to defang Iran's nuclear ambitions.
It would require an intense military campaign to take out military airfields and air defense systems. Their naval forces would have to be taken out to stem any thoughts of closing the straits of Hormuz. Not an easy task, but the US has the means and methods to do it alone.
The biggest problem is that if the Israelis strike at Bushehr for example then the Iranians will simply not believe that the US wasn't involved. Vice versa for a US strike. Iran will retaliate with Shahabs etc.
More that likely the US will have no other option but to follow up any Israeli strike with full military action of their own. An Israeli strike would simply stir up a hornets nest in the region. Iran's regime would try to retaliate against US forces in the region so it would be better if Iran was defanged with an intense military campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.