Posted on 12/05/2005 11:16:49 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
Geopolitical limitations render Israel's air force militarily incapable of halting Iran's nuclear weapons program according to a new report published the by U.S. Army War College.
The report asserts Israel lacks the military capability to locate and destroy Iranian nuclear assets. The report said the Israel Air Force cannot operate at such long distances from its bases.
"The Israeli Air Force has formidable capabilities and enjoys unchallenged supremacy vis-à-vis the other Middle East air powers, but Israel has no aircraft carriers and it cannot use airbases in other Middle East states," the report entitled "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran," said. "Therefore its operational capabilities are reduced when the targets are located far from its territory." [On Sunday, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz warned that diplomatic pressure would not stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, Middle East Newsline reported. Halutz was one of three senior Israeli officials who warned that Iran would soon be able to turn into a nuclear power.]
In an article authored by Shlomo Brom, former head of air force strategic planning, the report said Israel's deep-strike air capability was based on the F-15I and F-16C/D aircraft. At a range of more than 600 kilometers, Brom said, Israel could not sustain an air campaign. Iran is about 1,000 kilometers from Israel.
"It is possible to determine that at long ranges — more then 600 kilometers — the IAF is capable of a few surgical strikes, but it is not capable of a sustained air campaign against a full array of targets," the report said.
An Israeli air attack on Iran must also include such support aircraft as air refueling, electronic countermeasures, support, communication, and rescue, the report said. The mission would also require precision intelligence.
Brom said Israel's intelligence and military community was divided over the Iranian threat. He said military intelligence regards Iran as determined to destroy Israel. The Mossad and National Security Council see Teheran as preoccupied with national defense and regime survival.
"While the first school assumes no political pressure can force Iran to stop its military nuclear program, the other school believes that political pressure can be effective in at least delaying the nuclear program significantly," the report said. "The second school believes that a nuclear Iran with a different regime will not pose a high risk to Israel and can be easily deterred."
The report said the Bushehr nuclear power plant was vulnerable to attacks but does not constitute a key element of the military nuclear program. As a result, the destruction of Bushehr would not have a significant effect on Iran's military program.
Brom said Iranian nuclear assets are located between 1,500 and 1,700 kilometers from Israel. The report expressed doubts whether such Israeli allies as India and Turkey would allow Israel to launch a military strike from their territory.
"This means that the Israeli attack aircraft would have to take off from air bases in Israel, fly 1,500-1,700 kilometers to the targets, destroy them, and then fly back 1,500-1,700 kilometers," the report said.
The Israel Air Force has 25 F-15I and 137 F-16C/D fighter-bombers. The air force has already received more than 20 F-16Is, with longer range on the F-15I, but the report said the F-15I aircraft contains greater capabilities at long ranges.
The report said the F-15I has an operational radius of 1,270 kilometers. The F-16I has an operational radius of 2,100 kilometers while that of the F-16C/D is 925 kilometers.
But the report said the real operational radius was shorter because the planes would have to fly at low altitude to avoid radar detection. Brom said the Israeli aircraft could avoid Iranian air defense but would be detected.
"In any case, any Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear target would be a very complex operation in which a relatively large number of attack aircraft and support aircraft — interceptors, ECM [electronic counter-measures] aircraft, refuelers, and rescue aircraft — would participate," the report said. "The conclusion is that Israel could attack only a few Iranian targets and not as part of a sustainable operation over time, but as a one time surprise operation."
See my post #80.
Or Uganda.
The range is to long for a "super gun". A stealth cruise missle would work better.
We do that and we would be at war with most of the Middle East.
We're not now?
The Japanese had a simple solution for such a situation. The US solved this problem on the Doolittle raid.
Turn the plane into a weapon.
reality? "coming soon to a theatre near you"
the part i like best? pecuiar how the mideast has unfolded.
loads of landing strips in iraq
loads of landing strips in afghanistan
loads of ocean to the south for those new german subs
and who knows? perhaps loads of support from those bases
They may be right.
The Osirak reactor wasn't hidden because nobody thought Israel had the balls to attack the relatively undefended facility.
Times have changed:
1. The Israeli's have spread this out with many dummy sites.
2. The location of many of the locations is unknown.
3. Iran has been buying current-generation Russian AtoA missiles and radar and placing them HEAVILY around the sites that we know about.
When we attacked Iraq, we had up to date intel (which I'm sure we'll help the Israeli's with) and the first waves destroyed SAM and radar installations. The Israeli's don't have the staging areas and they certainly don't have stealth bombers to plow the road.
Not that I wouldn't like to see them try, but taking out Iran's nuclear facilities should be a TEAM EFFORT.
This thing seems to be getting further out of control by the day. I thought your post was quite interesting and have a couple of questions for you.
First, do you think that we (or the Israelis) can effectively wipe out the Iraninan's nuke program with conventional weapons? I have read alot of conflicting information in the last couple of days but I am getting the feeling that those facilities will not be effectively neutralized unless they are hit with nukes. It seems the only alternative would be a massive strike that would simultaneously decapitate the Iranian leadership structure and assault the nuclear facilities first with airstrikes and then with boots on the ground. Your thoughts?
Question 2 is this. Will the president take the political risk of acting pre-emptively? You, me, and I would hope that most of the folks on this board realize the calamity that a nuclear armed Iran would pose to the western world. I just dont know that the president can act pre-emptively now in almost any situation. The idiots on the left and in the media would destroy the president even though taking action seems completely warranted.
I agree that the U.S. is in a situation that is likely more precarious than 1941 or the Cuban Missle Crisis. The difference is that the media and the left seem to have turned a sizable chunk of the countries population against any type of action necessary to ensure our security.
"...or if they smuggle in a suitcase nuke, as a poster suggested, to make it look like an Iranian accident."
Bingo...there is the answer. The mission becomes a ground op and the target is the most likely one to contain a nuclear program. If it goes boom!, then the international commuity will squeal so loudly the iranians will have to pause, at least long enough to make sure the same oops does not happen again.
Failing that we also have ops where the israeli's use remote and abandoned iraqi air fields to refuel. Fly in special forces and fuel under the radar, seize the field, let the air force conduct the strike, run back, make a quick refuel and rearm, and run like hell for home. If you cut down the round trip distance, you indrease payload or target selection. I would see what there is available in the Kurd regions to the north near Iran. Heavens knows the iraqi air force is not using any bases right now.
I agree it would be beyond the pale, but we're not talking about conventional saber-rattling, either. When the head of one nation publicly declares that another nation should be wiped off the face of the earth, the stakes have gone through the roof - especially with the backdrop of Iran's nuclear ambitions and all the wrangling going on with the U.N.
If Israel does nothing and Tehran follows through, will they receive the ultimate Darwin Award for sitting back and letting it happen with so much advance warning?
"2. For the survival of the state of Israel, against a nuclear armed leadership that has public stated that it's goal is to wipe out Israel, plenty of pilots will make the trip one way."
Might not need to. Another possibility no one is mentioning is a straight overflight on to Afghanistan. Lots of old unused russian airfields there. From there they could do a lot of things including getting rid of the aircraft (and getting replacements from us)and returning home the long way.
I'm with you. That French fiasco over the gunboats back in the 70's comes to mind.
Excellent post - let me ask you this:
There is one trump card that has yet to be mentioned here, and that's OIL. What, in your opinion, is the possibility that Russia, China, Britain, and the United States will effectively agree to dismantle the Iranian regime to save the world economy? A nuclear war in the Middle East would spoil a lot of oil fields, would it not? At the end of the day, China may not like our form of government, but money always ALWAYS talks. They need that oil as much as we do.
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.