Why Iran should be worried!

[rjmaz1]

If you still don't believe me just search it up.

You really have no idea...

The F-15's have indeed shot down many Mig-29's. The Mig-29's didn't even know what hit them!!

If it was a real war with india, the F-15's would have won against india's SU-30's.

Israels F-15's are more than capable of destroying Irans nuclear facilities. Im sure the USAF may even have a refueling tanker for them to use over Iraq airspace

 

[ThunderBolt]

Who am i to judge, with no experience of flying either a mig29 or f15, and you know what i guess i didn't remember that part about red air/ blue air, my mistake. But I will tell you that, you gotta give the mig29's more credit than you currently are. Indian airforce or the Russian airforce is quite professional and i am pretty sure that if it was real war with both USAF and IAF with exactly the same missiles ammo and squadrons, it would really come down to the pilots them selfs and their skills, and as we all know Iraq's weren't the best out there. Anyways coming back to the topic, Israel would be better off sending in a couple of cruise missiles rather than sending squadrons of fighters.

 

[swerve]

...Israels F-15's are more than capable of destroying Irans nuclear facilities. Im sure the USAF may even have a refueling tanker for them to use over Iraq airspace

Why would the USAF actively assist an Israeli attack on Iran? That way, the USA has the downside, but doesn't control what happens. Better, from a US point of view, to attack Iran themselves. The reaction will be exactly the same.

BTW to attack all Irans nuclear facilities would take a few separate raids, as they're widely dispersed. The Israelis would have to overfly at least two countries to get there (Iraq + either Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia), unless they could get either Turkey or Saudi Arabia to accept both overflights & air-air refuelling in their airspace.

A hell of a lot of nonsense is talked about this. Few of those willing to state their opinions have ever looked at a map of the region.

 

[swerve]

...And back in 82 Iraq wasn't in position to send ground troops into Israel because they would have had to go through Iran and what not. ....

Exactly the wrong direction. Look at a map, please!

 

[rjmaz1]

Hahaha Iraq sending troops through Iran to get to Israel nfloorl:

Few of those willing to state their opinions have ever looked at a map of the region.

The western border of Iran is only 500 miles away from Israel. An F-15I can hit this target peace of cake without any inflight refueling.

The eastern parts of Iran however reachs 1000miles from Israel, quite a long distance indeed. However everyone didn't think Israel could reach Iraqs nuclear plant, they just had to go straight up and back and just made it.

With the F-15I a couple tanks and a 2,000lb bomb each they can make it. The F-15's would take off, hit the tanker on the boarder and then fly to iran. Even the F-16's with conformal tanks could make it to Iran and back.

 

[swerve]

Hahaha Iraq sending troops through Iran to get to Israel nfloorl:

The western border of Iran is only 500 miles away from Israel. An F-15I can hit this target peace of cake without any inflight refueling.

The eastern parts of Iran however reachs 1000miles from Israel, quite a long distance indeed. However everyone didn't think Israel could reach Iraqs nuclear plant, they just had to go straight up and back and just made it.

With the F-15I a couple tanks and a 2,000lb bomb each they can make it. The F-15's would take off, hit the tanker on the boarder and then fly to iran. Even the F-16's with conformal tanks could make it to Iran and back.

Make that nearer 600 than 500 miles, in a straight line, overflying Syria, Jordan, & Iraq, between the nearest parts of Israel & Iran. 1500 miles to the furthest part of Iran. The targets which it's suggested Israel might bomb are from 900 miles away upwards, in a straight line. And dispersed, hundreds of miles away from each other.

I've no doubt that Israeli aircraft can get there, but can they do it (1) without involving the USA (because if the USA is involved it might as well do the bombing itself), (2) without being intercepted, (3) in sufficient numbers to make the attacks?

BTW, "hitting the tanker on the boarder (sic)" would mean the attack coould not be surreptitious.

 

[radiosilence]

Attacking Iran would require several bombing raids to make sure you destroy the intended targets. Also, it would be wise to take out as much as possible their ability to reteliate directly. I don't think the Israelis have the ability to sustain this kind of bombing raid on Iran.

 

[WAR]

The rest of this is ? If the Israelis were really about to launch such an attack do you really think there would be a leak about it beforehand? Of course there wouldn't!

Well this may be a part of strategy to assess the would-be reaction of the world in any such eventuality. The timings would obviously be secret and confidential.

So there are two dynamics at work here. #1 is a newspaper that likes selling newspapers. #2 is an Israeli Government that wants to keep world opinion on Iran and its nuke program. And to do so it would provide a top secret "leak" to a western newspaper.

Both the options may well be there. But one can't just ignore the whole scenario by putting it merely a paper threat. Recently, the hanging of Saddam got a widespread criticism in terms of "Urgency" of execution of court orders, alongwith mistreatment before hanging.

The bottom line is that the majority was expecting that the appeal process would long for may be six months or so. But nothing of sorts occur.

So, I suppose that the Israeli threat may actualise sooner, especially when UN resolution is passed against Iran.

 

[ThunderBolt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBolt
...And back in 82 Iraq wasn't in position to send ground troops into Israel because they would have had to go through Iran and what not. ....

Exactly the wrong direction. Look at a map, please!

Sorry, what I meant to say was not Iran, but Iraq, they would have to send ground troops into Israel because they would have had to go through all of Iraqi Desert, and chances are that if Israel knew that they were coming for them, the IAF would wipe the whole attacking force before it leaves Iraq. Sorry about the typo!

Wouldn't it make much more sense to send in F16 Block D's rather than F15's because we all know that F15's are not as good of a multirole fighter/bomber than F16 block D's. If they fit these F16's with external fuel tanks, it will give them enough window to get there lose their payload and return home safly. What do you think.

 

[Ths]

I have a feeling that the trick up the Indians sleeve was their Observer Corps.

 

[Ths]

I have to agree with "WAR": There is no real strategic surprise lost. Everybody will know that when you say a country is to be wiped from the face of the planet, that country - especially with the jewish experience - will do everything in its power to avoid that - and not be to particular by which means the result is achieved.

A thing to ponder: Publicising such a hairbranined scheme might be one way of lulling the gentlemen with the unusual headgear in to overconfidence.

It just might be a case of: Tell the truth, nobody will believe you.

 

[WAR]

Well said.

 

[Distiller]

Make that nearer 600 than 500 miles, in a straight line, overflying Syria, Jordan, & Iraq, between the nearest parts of Israel & Iran. 1500 miles to the furthest part of Iran. The targets which it's suggested Israel might bomb are from 900 miles away upwards, in a straight line. And dispersed, hundreds of miles away from each other.

I've no doubt that Israeli aircraft can get there, but can they do it (1) without involving the USA (because if the USA is involved it might as well do the bombing itself), (2) without being intercepted, (3) in sufficient numbers to make the attacks?

BTW, "hitting the tanker on the boarder (sic)" would mean the attack coould not be surreptitious.

I wonder which countries would give the Israeli air force overflight rights if everybody knows/suspects that those planes have a nuclear warload.

 

[eckherl]

I wonder which countries would give the Israeli air force overflight rights if everybody knows/suspects that those planes have a nuclear warload.

Israel is not ready to show the world that they have that trump card just yet.

 

[swerve]

I wonder which countries would give the Israeli air force overflight rights if everybody knows/suspects that those planes have a nuclear warload.

Frankly, I can't imagine any of those countries except Turkey giving Israel any overflight rights in any circumstances, & Turkey wouldn't allow overflight rights for an attack on Iran, whether nuclear or not.

Paul

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Frankly, I can't imagine any of those countries except Turkey giving Israel any overflight rights in any circumstances, & Turkey wouldn't allow overflight rights for an attack on Iran, whether nuclear or not.

Paul

Yeah, i doubt Jordan would, and Syria would rather go to war with Israel than allow overflights. Even if turkey did it would double the round trip range. Really the USN is the only striking force in the right position to make this happen. Allthough turkey would probably be more likely to give the U.S. overflight rights for B2's than Israel.

 

[contedicavour]

Well in 1981 Israel didn't ask anybody for overflight rights when they bombed Osirak reactor right ?
I agree Turkey would refuse those rights and its air force is good enough to be able to enforce control over its airspace. However Jordan doesn't and I'm not sure USAF or USN still patrol that tightly northern Iraq's Kurdish airspace. Besides, would USAF jets really open fire on IDF fighterbombers ? Hmmm.
As an alternative, IDF jets could fly low over Saudi desert close to the Iraqi border and reach Iran by flying over the Persian Gulf. I'm not sure Saudis control their airspace very tightly despite their very good F15s. Though the Persian Gulf is very crowded with USN jets off Bahrein and carriers. So I'd go for the first route through Jordan and northern Iraq.

cheers

 

[SU 30MKI]

Well Well everyone here give pro and cons

Let me ask you some simple straight Questions: -

1) Will Isreal will More safe if Iran has Nuke Weapon ? or Isreal will more safe when Iran dosnt have Nukes??

If Iran has Nuke then Isreal will be sitting duck and attacks on isreal will rise from both ends and evern sriya will rise up. Dont forget Hizb rockets attack. this is will rise and world can only watch.

If Isreali dont attack then the fear of wipe out will always their but if takes out NUkes so Isreal existance is safe..


US will help Isreal anyway. Isreali F-15 Can land on US carrier with some modifications or ISreali can use US -15 etc. Now the stage is set ISreali will Attack and at any cost.

No Country want to Jepordise its existance, World agree or disagree Isreali will Launch attack its only matter how and when and where

 

[eckherl]

Well in 1981 Israel didn't ask anybody for overflight rights when they bombed Osirak reactor right ?
I agree Turkey would refuse those rights and its air force is good enough to be able to enforce control over its airspace. However Jordan doesn't and I'm not sure USAF or USN still patrol that tightly northern Iraq's Kurdish airspace. Besides, would USAF jets really open fire on IDF fighterbombers ? Hmmm.
As an alternative, IDF jets could fly low over Saudi desert close to the Iraqi border and reach Iran by flying over the Persian Gulf. I'm not sure Saudis control their airspace very tightly despite their very good F15s. Though the Persian Gulf is very crowded with USN jets off Bahrein and carriers. So I'd go for the first route through Jordan and northern Iraq.

cheers

Out of all the opinions that has been written on this thread, a big congrats needs to be forwarded to you for thinking the best possible solution for Israel if they decide to go about it with aircraft.

 

[Rich]

I'm not sure Saudis control their airspace very tightly despite their very good F15s. Though the Persian Gulf is very crowded with USN jets off Bahrein and carriers. So I'd go for the first route through Jordan and northern Iraq.

1981 was a lifetime ago. The Israelis surprised everyone with that attack, including Israelis. The 2nd time around wont be a surprise. Not just that but the hostile countries they will over fly, "and I define hostile as those who would shoot at them, have much better air defense systems and assets, including Saudi AWACs. The F-16I's and F-15Is of the IAF, while having better components then earlier versions, are still basically the same aircraft. They are not stealth and would have to fly nap of earth to avoid detection. And maybe even at night.

Mind you I believe Israel has every right to attack and should! Ive been saying for years America cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power. All I'm saying is Israel would have a very difficult time significantly degrading Irans program. Its just a far different animal then what Iraq was in '81. And dont forget, if Saddam didn't start the Gulf was he would have still gotten nukes sometime in the 90's. The result of the '81 Israeli strike was that Iraq dispersed their program in much the same way the Iranians have in recent years. Further the Iranians have invested in some pretty good SAM systems. They still have HAWK batteries and lately have purchased Tor M1 batteries. Add to that Rapier, SA-6s, and SA-5s, and they dont have a bad capability.

I dont think landing on a US CV is going to happen anytime soon. A pilot just doesn't up and decide to land on an aircraft carrier. It takes a lot of training and practice, both of which on US CVs probably couldn't remain secret. If we were going to go that route we'd probably just attack Iran our ownselves. Besides we dont even make 16s and 15s to land on aircraft carriers so I dont know where the Israelis would get the parts needed even if it could be done.

What it would take ,I believe, is a sustained American effort. But listen, if you want a good nfloorl: just read the articles of the UN sanctions on Iran. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/resolution1737.pdf If you want I'll cut it down to a few sentences for you. basically the UN is saying Iran cant import or export anything related to their nuclear weapons program. Thats it! Thats the sanction. nfloorl:

First off they have all they need anyways, most of which they never bought legally in the first place, instead relying on the Khan network and who knows who else. onfloorl: