Mag: Iran bombing odds are 2:1 by 2007

[STEED]

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Mag_Iran_bombing_odds_are_21_0307.html

Place your bets now :ping:

[August]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.

Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.
Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.
I'm not sure about that (http://www.katzir.com/1981/).

[tycho102]

Iran has learned since then. Moslems are not stupid. They've learned to de-centralize their weapons programs, and use taqiyya ("dual use") designs in all areas.

It's going to take more than bombing runs in the future. It worked once, and the enemy has learned.

[August]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.
Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.
I'm not sure about that (http://www.katzir.com/1981/).

Nice cartoon graphics. Was that made for kids?

As for my point about lasting. Were it not for the Iran/Iraq war diverting Saddams attention and funds, and their dependancy on foreign technical assistance, do you really think the Iraqis would have abandoned their nuke program because of that one single strike?

[The Avon Lady]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.
Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.
I'm not sure about that (http://www.katzir.com/1981/).
Nice cartoon graphics. Was that made for kids?
I have no idea.
As for my point about lasting. Were it not for the Iran/Iraq war diverting Saddams attention and funds, and their dependancy on foreign technical assistance, do you really think the Iraqis would have abandoned their nuke program because of that one single strike?The point wasn't necessarily about abandoning. It was about setting it back - way, way back.

[Oberon]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.

Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.

Errr....

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/PH/CG/CGP-038.jpg

[August]

The point wasn't necessarily about abandoning. It was about setting it back - way, way back.

I see. Of course, Iran, with it's multiple underground and hardened sites located deep within their territory would be a much tougher nut to crack.

[STEED]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.

Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.

Errr....

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/PH/CG/CGP-038.jpg

Yep it saved American lives.

Just out of interest was the code name for the invassion of Japan called SunRise. Not sure if it was.

[TLAM Strike]

Just out of interest was the code name for the invassion of Japan called SunRise. Not sure if it was. No it was Operation Downfall with Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu and Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo. ;)

[STEED]

Just out of interest was the code name for the invassion of Japan called SunRise. Not sure if it was. No it was Operation Downfall with Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu and Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo. ;)

Thanks that's what I call service :up:

[August]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.

Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.

Errr....

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/PH/CG/CGP-038.jpg[/img]

Yeah the bloody 4 year island hopping campaign and the largest naval battles in human history had absolutely nothing to do with it... :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Is this thread another vote for bunker buster nukes? I think we could use those - and if made properly and penetrating, there would be no above ground radiation.

-S

[Kapitan]

1) Bet 50% of thier planes get shot down before they get to the target

2) The newly produced subs will create havoc in the gulf

3) I think at least 2 ships will be hit in some fashion.

[SUBMAN1]

1) Bet 50% of thier planes get shot down before they get to the target

2) The newly produced subs will create havoc in the gulf

3) I think at least 2 ships will be hit in some fashion.

I bet less than 1% of their planes get shot down before they reach their target.

-S

[sonar732]

1) Bet 50% of thier planes get shot down before they get to the target

2) The newly produced subs will create havoc in the gulf

3) I think at least 2 ships will be hit in some fashion.

You obviously forgot the success rate of the F-117 against a highly defended Iraq with what was thought to be the best AA defense in the middle east.

"In all during Desert Storm, the stealth fighter conducted more than 1,250 sorties, dropped more than 2,000 tons of bombs, and flew more than 6,900 hours. More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protected the city, but despite this seemingly impenetrable shield, the Nighthawks owned the skies over the city and, for that matter, the country. The stealth fighter, which is coated with a secret, radar-absorbent material, operated over Iraq and Kuwait with impunity, and was unscathed by enemy guns."

[jumpy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4786968.stm

last I heard on the way home from work this evening was that should sanctions be imposed, then Iran would consider using its oil as leverage to further its nuclear ambitions... though this is contradicted by the above article/link.

Way to go Ahmadinejadadingdong... damn sabre rattling. Why can't they face up to the fact that no sane preson is gonna trust them with a nuclear capability? I mean, who exactly is a military threat to iran now anyways to merrit them needing nuclearWMD possible technology? Greedy little children wanting to play with the adults, stamping their feet when they are told that they are too damn immature and not ratioinal enough to be trusted with such an immense responsibility not to abuse such an 'entitlement' (for want of a better description).

*sigh*

I can see the need for nuclear energy purposes, trouble is that the same technology is used for WMD. Perhaps if the Iranians had a more trustworthy and relaxed nature (politically speaking) then the UN might be more inclined to grant consessions in this area.

[Oberon]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.

Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.

Errr....

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/PH/CG/CGP-038.jpg[/img]

Yeah the bloody 4 year island hopping campaign and the largest naval battles in human history had absolutely nothing to do with it... :yep:

Touche
But one could certainly not argue that it speeded up the end of the war, and helped save many lives...albeit at the loss of many civilians...

BUT
We've already had a thread on this and I'm damned if I'm gonna start another!! :hulk:

[August]

I don't think an airstrike will achieve the objective of dismantling their nuke program.

Airstrikes alone never achieve a lasting objective.

Errr....

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/PH/CG/CGP-038.jpg[/img]

Yeah the bloody 4 year island hopping campaign and the largest naval battles in human history had absolutely nothing to do with it... :yep:

Touche
But one could certainly not argue that it speeded up the end of the war, and helped save many lives...albeit at the loss of many civilians...

BUT
We've already had a thread on this and I'm damned if I'm gonna start another!! :hulk:

No you're right, it most certainly helped end the war faster than had we been forced to invade, but the deaths to civilians would have been much higher as well.

[Kapitan]

I was meaning planes like the F16 F18 and such they are bound to get hit like me walking down the M25 with a big target tattoed to my forehead.

[sonar732]

I was meaning planes like the F16 F18 and such they are bound to get hit like me walking down the M25 with a big target tattoed to my forehead.

You don't know much about the tactics of the US Air Force and US Navy then. There would be no way that we would send a F-15, F-16, or F/A-18 in first to take out the targets.

[Kapitan]

Id doubt you would take out 100% of thier air defence system in one sortie, id doubt in four or five sorties and i know that you wouldnt send in F/A18's and what not for a first strike that is just plain dumb.

But if they have mobile launchers then the aircraft become vunreble even after the stealth jets have gone in and done thier job

[sonar732]

Id doubt you would take out 100% of thier air defence system in one sortie, id doubt in four or five sorties.

But if they have mobile launchers then the aircraft become vunreble even after the stealth jets have gone in and done thier job

You didn't read my post earlier about the success of the F-117 during Gulf War I.

[Kapitan]

Theres so many posts im lost, the F117 is a very capible aircraft i know its sucsess rate is second to none but iraq is very diffrent to iran and i dont think you can compair the two seeing as iraq was the weaker power of the two.

Iraq didnt even have a navy or one that was so small it never put to sea, its army was well old and delapidated as we all saw, and the missiles are what getting on for about 40 years old.

Iran has new submarines and just recently built thier own, they have a small but effective modern navy, and modern weapons supplied by russia.

So with all that there is still very little comparison between the two thats the way i see it you cannot realy compair fairly iran and iraq.

[Oberon]

Even though Kap, I'd say that 50% is a little high...I'd say 10%-20% worst case scenario, bearing in mind that a lot of the stuff Iran has would probably struggle to get up to the altitudes that the stuff the US would throw in. Most of the heavy firepower work will probably be done by TLAMs anyway, and the odd B-2.
Mobile launchers would be a job for Nighthawks and the such, and that's probably where the occasional casualties will occur. Even then though, if the US want to be extra careful, they could just send in Darkies, no-one's gonna die if a Darkie gets shot down...as expensive as it would be.
So long as this doesn't become a ground war, the US has the overwhelming advantage in both technology and numbers.

[Kapitan]

That is true in many cases maybe set high yes, but i do think that at least two ****s will be hit i dont know why i just do.

[sonar732]

Iraq didnt even have a navy or one that was so small it never put to sea, its army was well old and delapidated as we all saw, and the missiles are what getting on for about 40 years old.

Where did I mention anything compairing the two navies? I know the Iranians have Kilo class submarines and the Iraqi's didn't. :roll:

Actually, the Iraqi AA defenses were up to date.

"The SA-6 Gainful contains three missiles on a tracked vehicle and has an effective range of about 15 miles. In addition, Iraq has a number of U.S. Hawk missiles which is seized from Kuwait when they invaded last August. U.S. planners have made destruction of Iraqi anti-air missiles and their command centers a priority in the initial days of Desert Storm."

The production of the SA-6 started in 1968/67 and didn't end until 1983/85, with updates to the design in the late 1970's.

"With one of the first targets of the air war being the air defense system, allied commanders were effective in eliminating coordinated anti-aircraft t hroughout the country forcing Iraq to operate only at the local unit level."

So with all that there is still very little comparison between the two thats the way i see it you cannot realy compair fairly iran and iraq.

The American's won't change the tactics of ultilizing the stealth program against the SAM's. This is what they were designed for in the first place...to take out the outstanding SAM batteries in USSR during the Cold War.

[Kapitan]

I do agree here sonar its just i dont think you can compair the two millaterys one is more modern i mean did the Iraqies have modern Klub missiles? no and that missile you quoted was highly outdated.

SA 9 missiles are more modern and more advanced

[TLAM Strike]

Iraq didnt even have a navy or one that was so small it never put to sea, its army was well old and delapidated as we all saw, and the missiles are what getting on for about 40 years old. Iraq did have a navy of Osas and LSD along with some other stuff. Our A-6s and your Lynxes had a good time hunting them down.

Iran has new submarines and just recently built thier own, they have a small but effective modern navy, and modern weapons supplied by russia. Their navy hasn't changed much since Operation Praying Mantis other than they got a few subs. Their navy didn't do much during Praying Mantis other than get sunk.


Kap one thing you are forgetting is that NATO has lots of Anti-Radiation missiles to deal with whatever air defenses Iran has. In the Gulf war Navy F/A-18s were deployed to suppress air defenses while the F-117s did their job. Any Iranian who turns on his radar is going to get a face full of HARMs and ALARMs. The Hornet has a fantastic payload capability, they can carry 4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders, 2 1000lb JADAMs, 2 HARMs and 1 1000 gal fuel tank- if they use in-flight refueling a flight can fight its way to the target past whatever SAMs, AAA, and MiGs the enemy has, deliver precision weapons from high altitude and exit under the cover of a flight of USAF F-15s. :ping:

[Kapitan]

Yes and this is a good thing too, im not denying the good role and tactics of the USN USAF or anything its just why use the same tactics over and over and over again cause one day your going to get a big shock some one will work around it and defeat the object.

its like me ive used the same tactic on a guy called madcap he came cute to it worked his way round me (although he sinks me more often than not lol)

[Oberon]

Assuming that I wanted to end Irans nuclear program full stop, the first step would be to locate all the sites, now we know that Iran is bloody good at hiding stuff so that's gonna take a while...in fact, it's probably what the US is doing right now, they've probably been doing this ever since word trickled through that Iran was working on something.
Once you've picked the targets, then you hit them fast and you hit them hard. First wave of F-117s take out the mobile SAMs and then F-18s and the like use stand-off AGMs against fixed SAM sites...once the path is clear then the B-1s and B-2s arrive, and then drop EVERYTHING they've got on the processing sites, not the areas for the reactors themselves, because if they so much as move a drop of plutonium out of place then the entire global community is gonna come down on them...so it's a case of hitting the structure and not the contents. Smash it to bits...and heck, if there's some terrorist training camps that you don't like the look of, drop some on them too...get it all over and done in ONE night.
By the time the shockwaves from the attack reverb around the world, the B-2s will be back at base...minimum civilian casualties...minimum friendly casualties. Clean, surgical cut. Dragging it out over a week is just asking for some Iranian SAM'er to get lucky...and then you're handing propaganda to the enemy and Al'Jazzera is just gonna LOVE that.

There will be backlashes, Russia will probably be unamused, but since they're very pro-west now (well, at the moment anyway :P) they won't kick up so much fuss....then Bin will make a speech denouncing the 'infidels cowardly attacks on innocent middle-eastern countries' and it's possible that there'll be more suicide bombings in Iraq than usual...but you compare that with a nuke over Tel' Aviv and suddenly it doesn't seem so much of a sacrifice.
Naturally, Iran is gonna try again...but this time they're gonna be more cautious...

Then there's Mr Kim... :doh:

[sonar732]

I do agree here sonar its just i dont think you can compair the two millaterys one is more modern i mean did the Iraqies have modern Klub missiles? no and that missile you quoted was highly outdated.

SA 9 missiles are more modern and more advanced

You are missing the point like usual Kaptain. At the time of Gulf War I they weren't that far out of date. Also, you remind me of the people who predicted that during both Gulf War I and Operation Enduring Freedom, that the casulty count would be so high that the coalition would withdraw. I haven't denied that the US would loose some planes, but not the 50% you predicted.

[Kapitan]

1) im not talking about gulf war 1 think this is where we are getting confused.

2) the missiles yes its true they were in date at that time, but now are almost relics

3) maybe not 50% but be more caucious at 15% but i do think that at least two ships will be hit i have no clue why so dont ask.

4) i know for fact america will go in there and kick irans butt in to the next mellenium if need be. (in fact we all do)

[sonar732]

1) im not talking about gulf war 1 think this is where we are getting confused.

2) the missiles yes its true they were in date at that time, but now are almost relics

3) maybe not 50% but be more caucious at 15% but i do think that at least two ships will be hit i have no clue why so dont ask.

4) i know for fact america will go in there and kick irans butt in to the next mellenium if need be. (in fact we all do)

My points about Gulf War I is that Bagdad was considered almost impossible to attack by air due to it's AA battery. At the time, it had the up to date systems...along with some AA guns of course. The tactics of both AA missiles and anti-suppression hasn't changed that much in the 15 years. We will still go in with the same tactics against the current AA missile system that Iran has.

Everywhere I look, the Iranian Kilo's are in desperate need of repair. I would forsee an attack by small missile boat like in the 80's against neutral shipping. Then we aren't taking into consideration that the training of the crew on those Kilo's are probably sub-par. I'm not ruling out that they might get a torpedo off against neutral shipping, but I don't see them being able to find the USS Virginia (maybe a few 688's providing support) lurking in the Persian Gulf and once they do launch a torpedo, the fleet would be in the area quicker then sh1t on flies.

[Kapitan]

Russia has repaired a few kilos and upgraded them thats all i know but yes i do agree maybe a few lucky shot / s might get threw but who can tell at this stage.

The F117's i know will make easy picking to take out SAM's but what about the ones that may be hidden when the F18's and what not start flying over what then?

[sonar732]

The F117's i know will make easy picking to take out SAM's but what about the ones that may be hidden when the F18's and what not start flying over what then?

They will meet a HARM missile mono-el-mono. :rock: :rotfl:

[TLAM Strike]

The F117's i know will make easy picking to take out SAM's but what about the ones that may be hidden when the F18's and what not start flying over what then? Thats what RADAR Jamming aircraft like the EA-6B and F/A-18G are for. :ping:

[TteFAboB]

You guys are revealing every information Ahmadinejadadingdong needs in a war against the US.

What happened to keeping a secret and using the element of surprise anyway?

:-j :smug:

[PeriscopeDepth]

My thoughts

I wouldn't be sure of HARM's killing SAM sites. In Operation Allied Force we were dodging SAMs from sites we thought we had killed weeks ago. But it's a moot point anyway, as HARM is more of a suppression system than a hard kill system. And not being able to radiate for fear of all the loitering HARM shooters is just as good as a hard kill. I guess if the Iran air strikes happen we'll see whether the S-300 system is what it's cracked up to be. As TLAM mentioned, EW aircraft like the Prowler are invaluable to the SEAD mission. As long as AD weapons use radar as a cueing system they will be on the losing end of the equation when it comes to dealing with American air power. IMO, I think the most dangeous thing to American policing with air power is the development of a sound cued optically guided SAM/directed energy weapon.