Israel vs. Iran ... A real nuke issue

During 1990 Russia delivered 12

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Fencers to the the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF). The IRIAF has modified these aircraft to use Western weapons, such as the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. After Operation Desert Storm began, Saddam sent 24 Iraqi Su-24MKs to Iran. These have since been integrated in the IRIAF Su-24 fleet. In 2002 all Iranian Su-24s were modified with inflight refuelling probes to receive fuel from the IRIAF KC-707 tankers. .."The Exocet missile definitely proved the vulnerability of the slow-moving big ship." The key to the U.K.'s Falklands victory, Arquilla continues, was that the British calculated how to put their two aircraft carriers beyond the range of Argentinean air attacks while still enabling British aircraft to hit Argentinean forces. That lesson has applications for the challenge that the U.S. Navy may soon face in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the Gulf's north shore belongs to Iran and is potentially a platform for their cruise missiles. True, any ship within the Gulf, including ships docked at the U.S. Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain, could theoretically be targeted from across the Gulf or from speedboats and helicopters that the Iranians have purportedly adapted as mobile platforms for their missiles. In practice, however, America has and will maintain complete air dominance.
That means that if America stands off its naval assets over the horizon, the Iranians have three options: they can aim their missiles at targets in visible range, employ radar-guided missiles to acquire over-the-horizon targets, or else use sea-based platforms to launch missiles. In all those cases, they will immediately become vulnerable to U.S. retaliation from the air. The Iranians would likely only get one chance at launching their cruise missiles before their platforms were destroyed.
Yet what if the Iranians could launch swarms of hundreds of missiles simultaneously? All bets might be off. In such a scenario, the Iranians could conceivably devastate an American naval force. ..Like mounted cavalry faced by the machine gun in 1914 or the battleship confronted by aerial attack in 1941, the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group seems likely to become increasingly a giant, slow-moving target when an enemy can fire swarms of self-guiding cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. "Sixty-odd years ago, the German admiral Durnitz had in his office a picture of the ocean with a few gulls and a sunlit sea," John Arquilla says. "Durnitz would point to this picture when his U-boat skippers visited him and say, ‘That is the future of naval warfare--there will be no great vessels, only submarines and aircraft.'

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The weekly said the Islamic republic had been conducting night-time refueling exercises and has increased training of pilots for long-range missions, which it implies could involve a target in the Mediterranean.

"Iran is pursuing a longer-range strike capability for its air assets to support the delivery of more powerful strategic weapons systems," the weekly said.

Tehran "is investing considerable resources in generating enhanced operational aerial refuelling capabilities to support strike assets capable of delivering such systems," notably involving the Sukhoi Su-24MK strike aircraft, it added.

Refuelling exercises have been conducted over Syria, under a November 2005 agreement granting Iran access to Syrian air space.

"A clause in the agreement provides for Syria to serve as a 'rear base for Iran' where 'Damascus will allow (Iranian) aircraft, returning from a mission (the implication being a target in the Mediterranean) to land at a Syrian air force base in case of emergency,'" it said.

Click to expand...

I don't think the U.S. will be able to significantly damage Iran with air strikes, I certainly doubt Israel could.

Click to expand...

If you are refering to the Iranian nuke sites>>> Why, in your opinion, couldn't the US signifantly damage them?

Click to expand...

Scratch said:

Bluejacket, I have my doubt's if iranien subs could make it to the Meditaranien, and even more so if they then could make it back. I'M not really sure the crew is trained and the ship really suited (maintanance wise) for such a journy.
If the USN places one or two subs in the strait of Hormuz, or generally close to the iranien cost, could a Kilo even make it through the strait undetected?

Click to expand...

the Israeli public's anxiety has not been lessened by reports of the efficacy of anti-missile systems that Israel has installed at great expense. The Iranians have mastered all of the technical bases of missile technology, according to Israeli experts, and although the quality and precision of Iran's missiles may leave something to be desired, they can inflict immense damage. Israeli specialists also argue that the missile-defense shield Israel possesses – in common with those of all other nations – is not sufficient to protect it. Syria has missiles also – not so effective as the Iranian ones, but much closer and capable of inflicting much damage if used. ..
A war with Iran would be far more dangerous. Worse yet, efforts to demonize Iran have failed. Only 36 percent of the Jewish population of Israel polled last month thought an Iranian nuclear attack the "biggest threat" to Israel. ..
Serious Israeli strategists overwhelmingly believe, to cite Reuven Pedatzur in Ha'aretz last November, that "mutual assured deterrence can be forged, with a high degree of success, between Israel and Iran." Israeli strategic thinking is highly realistic. Early this February a study released at a conference by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University predicted that Iran would behave rationally with nuclear weapons and "that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential national interest" for it. Iran "will act logically, evaluating the price and risks involved." A preemptive attack on Iran nuclear research sites would "be a strategic mistake," Pedatzur warned the conference, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons against them sheer folly. "Our best option is open nuclear deterrence."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Vlad Plasmius said:

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

While the Mediterranean is a possibility. Iran could be preparing for a long-rang strike similar to what Israel might plan. With fighters in Syria, however, they would be able to take it even further than that.

I don't think the U.S. will be able to significantly damage Iran with air strikes, I certainly doubt Israel could.

Click to expand...

Uh, Vlad? I have to agree with Popeye. Why do you think the US couldn't substantially damage Iran? We would not be able to destroy some portions of the nuclear program to be sure, but we could devestate Irans military and civilian infrastucture.

Click to expand...

Do keep in mind that while impressive as a regional power, Iran simply does not have the capacity to fend off successive waves of cruise missile strikes, stealth bombers with JDAMS munitions, drones fitted for wild weasel missions and literally hundreds of tactical fighters and heavy bombers Those are just the things we know about. No doubt, the Air Force would be interested in trying out that new EMP weapon if it is ready. I also agree with Popeye in that I hope it doesn't come to that.

Click to expand...

lcortez said:

... I believe that at present Iran has a 'point defence' air defence system,but is negotiating with Russia for an intergrated system,is this the case,does anyone have a better understanding of the situation?

Click to expand...