-
"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," deputy air force chief, Gen. Mohammad Alavi was quoted as telling Fars in an interview.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297302,00.html
The news is interpreting that as aircraft. I think they mean suicide bombers, car bombers and the like.
Because otherwise...um...
Well, let's see. Iranian aircraft facing Israel's air force. Which is one of the best in the world. That would be some short lived target practice for Israel, that's for sure. "Fox two! Fox two, fox two, fox two, splash four MiGs..."
It'd be entertaining, at least. Israel's "Battle of Britain", but rather one-sided.
-
Uh...
The guy is identified as a General of the Iranian Air Force.
Why would he be talking about suicide bombers?
Well, the pilots would be suicides, but I doubt that they'd get the opportunity to bomb much.
A military man talking smack about his military's capabilities as opposed to the enemy's.
Who would have thought that they would ever do something silly like that?
After all, in 1990-91, Saadam certainly never said that the US was facing the "Mother of All Battles" as the media reported.
What he really said was that Iraq was facing the Mother of All Asskickings...
But you know how the liberal media is.
Oh, and by the way...
This really isn't a political thread.
-
Well, the pilots would be suicides, but I doubt that they'd get the opportunity to bomb much.
Forget ordinary bombing - instead, think of Moslem kamikazes . . .
Other than the facilities at Dimona, what are Israel's highest-value targets?
-
Other than the facilities at Dimona, what are Israel's highest-value targets?
Oh, they have a few to choose from thanks to Iran's current path down the nuclear road.
Uranium Hexaflouride gas centrifuges.
Breeder reactors.
Yellowcake facilities.
Heavy-water plants.
Iran figured that they'd decentralize their nuclear program to prevent one airstrike from taking out the whole ballgame.
So that gives Israel many additional targets now.
(It's also why the IAF has been practicing low-level fighter refueling over the last couple years, hint, hint...)
-
And where are the Russians in all this?
-
And where are the Russians in all this?
Probably cynically hoping the U.S./Israel does blow up all of Iran's nuclear stuff so Russia can sell them more when the dust settles.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat&.
-
Yellowcake...
MMMMmmmmm
I just had a chunk of yellowcake someone brought in.
Yummy, but sweet!
-
Other than the facilities at Dimona, what are Israel's highest-value targets?
Oh, they have a few to choose from thanks to Iran's current path down the nuclear road.
Uranium Hexaflouride gas centrifuges.
Breeder reactors.
Yellowcake facilities.
Heavy-water plants.
Iran figured that they'd decentralize their nuclear program to prevent one airstrike from taking out the whole ballgame.
So that gives Israel many additional targets now.
I guess I wasn't clear . . . Dimona is Israel's (not so) secret nuke facility - what other high value targets might Iranian Air Force kamikazes hit in Israel in order to do the most damage?
-
If Iran were to hit a nuclear facility in Israel, I'd say that warrants a nuclear response.
-
A lot of what the Iranians say is for domestic consumption-so you shouldn't be surprised if they say things that grossly overestimate the capabilities of their own forces. They're not going to convince their population that they need to support militarization by saying 'Hey, our stuff is crap but we'll send suicide bombers out..."
Hard to say what an attack on Iran will result in. Maybe WWIII, maybe nothing besides smoldering buildings in Iran. I don't see any good predictions for the fallout from bombing Iran out there, but I certainly hope some decent ones get published before anyone actually rushes in to attack the place.
-
A lot of what the Iranians say is for domestic consumption
Remember that - what they say. Unfortunately, once they start cleaning up their 235/238 ratios, and enrich past 20% U235, what they say and what they do are two totally different things. There's no such thing as domestic consumption of weapons-grade uranium.
-
I suspect US fleet commanders would be a bit happier right now if more of their ships in the region had their Phalanx guns (which can't stop a Sunburn) replaced with the Raytheon SeaRAM (which can).
Unless they have been and that's just not been released yet.
-
Well, let's see. Iranian aircraft facing Israel's air force. Which is one of the best in the world. That would be some short lived target practice for Israel, that's for sure. "Fox two! Fox two, fox two, fox two, splash four MiGs..."
If ya notice, the US is occupying a wide swath of land that exists between Israel and Iran. For the Izzies to bomb Iran, they'd have to do so with US permission. Even for us, that'd be a bit latent. Like ya meantion, we don't want to piss off a country that can shut down the Gulf with a few dozen Sunburn. The US Naval version of the SeaRAM holds 11 launches, I believe. Iran has at least 12 Sunburns.
And vice versa. Iranian MiG's ain't getting through Iraqi airspace without being turned into scrap metal.
-
The worst-case scenario for Iran's retaliation I was reading of didn't even depend on the Sunburns, it was in the form of launching hundreds of Exocets to nail defenseless tankers in the Straits, turning them to flaming hazards to navigation and basically shutting the whole thing down.
They probably have lots of Exocets. A Sunburn can hurt a US Navy vessel bad, but one or two Exocets would turn a tanker into floating hell.
But yes, those Sunburns are scary. Mach-3 at wave level, jink back and forth on approach, then pop up and slam down through the deck, avoiding the side armor. Ouch. That would end a carrier's flight operations with probably lots of casualties.
-
as gen. bradley was fond of saying,study your opponents capabilities instead of intentions.
-
"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," deputy air force chief, Gen. Mohammad Alavi was quoted as telling Fars in an interview.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297302,00.htmlThe news is interpreting that as
aircraft. I think they mean suicide bombers, car bombers and the like.
Because otherwise...um...
Well, let's see. Iranian aircraft facing Israel's air force. Which is one of the best in the world. That would be some short lived target practice for Israel, that's for sure. "Fox two! Fox two, fox two, fox two, splash four MiGs..."
It'd be entertaining, at least. Israel's "Battle of Britain", but rather one-sided.
If you read the entire statement he explicitely talks about fighter-bombers and their expanded long-range missile capability. Iran trained Hezbollah to be their suicide bombing (of all kinds) proxy against Israel. The Israelis have pretty much reduced their capability to launching rockets from Lebanon and Gaza. So air and missiles are the only options they really have. And as you point out, air is a non-starter.
-
If you read the entire statement he explicitely talks about fighter-bombers and their expanded long-range missile capability. Iran trained Hezbollah to be their suicide bombing (of all kinds) proxy against Israel. The Israelis have pretty much reduced their capability to launching rockets from Lebanon and Gaza. So air and missiles are the only options they really have. And as you point out, air is a non-starter.
Don't be so sure. MiG wise, yea, suicide. UAV, on the other hand. Iran's proxy Hezbollah managed to disable an Izzie boat with a UAV. That is worrisome because it shows adaptiveness and a bit of technology. Yea, the first generation isn't impressive. But imagine a swarm of scramjet/ramjet/whatever cheap UAV's with a mild touch of onboard intelligence. Smart Katyushas. Wouldn't even need a payload if the birds were fast enough. Some folks have been wondering why Iran is so interested its domestic ramjet production.
The worst-case scenario for Iran's retaliation I was reading of didn't even depend on the Sunburns, it was in the form of launching hundreds of Exocets to nail defenseless tankers in the Straits, turning them to flaming hazards to navigation and basically shutting the whole thing down.
They probably have lots of Exocets. A Sunburn can hurt a US Navy vessel bad, but one or two Exocets would turn a tanker into floating hell.
But yes, those Sunburns are scary. Mach-3 at wave level, jink back and forth on approach, then pop up and slam down through the deck, avoiding the side armor. Ouch. That would end a carrier's flight operations with probably lots of casualties.
As far as I know, Iran licensed the technology and builds their own. Far cheaper than importing. So, yes. It'd be safe to assume they'll have sufficient numbers to cause a lot of damage. The Exocets are a reliable workhorse, but we have the capabilities to deal with them relatively easily enough. Sunburns in sufficient clusters, we do not.