Do you really think the Israelis are that crazy that they would risk
total annhilation?

To hear you Americans, you are the only military power on this planet.
Not so. Jews always end up making a fatal political mistake and then
blame the world for the problems they themselves brought on other less
fortunate Jews. You, American Christian Zionist ***** kissers make me
throw up.

"The Last 2460 daysT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1143511394.248732.193510@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Found this commentary on the MSN website -- Interesting viewpoint from
the Seppo perspective, Lt.Col.Rick Fraancona......

HOOROO

UNCLE WALLY

---0---


March 21, 2006 | 12:33 p.m. ET

Iran: Israel's air-strike options (Lt. Col. Rick Francona)

Let's assume that Iran has exhausted the world's patience over its
"peaceful nuclear energy" research program - a program most
analysts believe is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. Israel has
indicated in clear terms that it will not permit Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons. What are Israel's options to derail the program?

Most analysts agree that Israel does not have the capability to strike
all of the sites associated with the program - estimates range between
12 and more than 20 locations. With limited power projection
capabilities, Israeli intelligence analysts will determine the critical
portions of the program - the key elements that if destroyed will slow
down the effort. In 1981, the Israeli air force successfully crippled
the Iraqi nuclear program with a daring daylight air raid on the key
element of that program - the French-built Osirak reactor at
At-Tuwaythah, just south of Baghdad. The single most critical element
In the Iranian program is thought to be the centrifuge facility at
Natanz (also known as the Esfahan enrichment facility).

The Natanz facility is a challenging target. The heart of the facility
is the centrifuge area, located in an underground, hardened structure.
The Iranians are fully aware of Israeli capabilities and no doubt have
studied what the Israelis did to the Iraqi program a quarter century
ago. They are also aware of the demonstrated capability of the
American-made precision-guided penetrating munitions ("bunker busters")
in the Israeli inventory. The Iranian program has been dispersed all
over the country; the facilities have been built with American and
Israeli capabilities in mind and are protected by modern Russian air
defense systems.

Aside from the difficult nature of the target itself is its geographic
location in relation to Israel. The straight-line distance between
Israel and Natanz is almost 1000 miles. (At-Tuwaythah was only 600
miles). Since the countries do not share a common border, Israeli
aircraft or missiles must fly through foreign - and hostile - airspace
to get to the target.

The least risky method of striking Natanz is with Israel's medium range
ballistic missiles, the Jericho II or III. Details on the exact
capabilities of these systems are unknown, but it is believed that the
Israeli missiles can reach Natanz. However, to travel that far, the
missiles will have a limited warhead weight, probably less than 1000
pounds. It is doubtful that these warheads will be able to penetrate
far enough underground to achieve the desired level of destruction.
That points to an attack by the Israeli air force's American-made
fighter-bomber aircraft as the most likely option. The Israelis have 25
F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) and about 30 F-16I Sufa (Storm) jets.

How will the aircraft fly from their bases in Israel to a target
located 200 miles inside Iran? There are two realistic ways to get
there - either through Saudi Arabia or Iraq, possibly even using
Jordanian airspace as well. Either route is a one-way trip of about
1200 miles. Even though Turkey and Israel have had a defense agreement
since 1996, using Turkish airspace is not likely politically and would
require the attacking aircraft to fly over 1000 miles inside Iranian
airspace. It is also doubtful that the Israelis would jeopardize
operational security by consulting with the Turks.

The Saudi Arabia option. The strike aircraft depart southern Israel,
enter Saudi airspace from the Gulf of 'Aqabah or Jordan, fly 800
miles of Saudi airspace to the Persian Gulf and then 300 miles into
Iran. Although the Israelis traversed Saudi airspace when they attacked
the Iraqi facility in 1981, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have since
significantly upgraded their air defense capabilities and share
information with each other.

Since the Israeli air force does not operate stealth aircraft, there is
a reasonable expectation that at some point the aircraft will be
detected over Saudi Arabia, either by ground based radar or the AWACS
airborne radar platforms. Whether Saudi defenses could - or would - be
able to stop the Israelis is uncertain. Perhaps the Saudis would turn a
blind eye and claim ignorance - after all, a nuclear-armed Iran is a
potential threat to the Kingdom as well.

The Iraq option. The strike aircraft depart southern Israel, cross 300
to 400 miles of Saudi airspace or a combination of Jordanian and Saudi
airspace, and enter Iraqi airspace as soon as possible, continue across
500 miles of Iraq to the Persian Gulf and then on to the target.
Entering Iran from Iraqi airspace would create too much of political
firestorm. As it is, the use of Iraqi airspace will require the
cooperation of the United States. Although Iraq is a sovereign nation,
its skies are controlled by the American military. That said, allowing
Israeli aircraft to ingress from Iraq is likely out of the question.

Either of these options carries the risk that once the actual attack on
the facility is made, the viability of the return route is in jeopardy
- all forces in the area will be on alert. The planners may opt to go
to the target one way and back home via another.

The limiting factor in Israeli planning is the great distance to the
target. Can Israel's fighter-bombers conduct this mission without
refueling? Combat radius - the distance an aircraft can fly and return
without refueling - is difficult to calculate, and depends on weapons
payload, external fuel tanks, mission profile, etc. It is even more
difficult when dealing with Israeli aircraft because they will not
release performance data on their assets.

The best "guestimate" of the combat radius of the F-15I and F-16I,
outfitted with conformal fuel tanks, two external wing tanks and a
decent weapons load, is almost 1000 miles. Either of the two possible
flight routes is about 200 miles further than that. To make up for the
shortfall, the aircraft could be fitted with an additional external
fuel tank, but this will require a reduction in the weapons load. Given
the accuracy of the weapons in the Israeli inventory, that might not be
problematic. However, if the aircraft are detected and intercepted, the
pilots will have to jettison the tanks in order to engage their
attackers. Dropping the tanks will prevent the aircraft from reaching
their target.

Air refueling. This raises the question of air refueling? This is a
limitation for the Israelis. While Israel has a large air force, its
focus has been on the Arab countries that surround it. In recent years,
it has sought the capability to project power against a target over
1000 miles away. To do this, Israel has acquired five B707 tanker
aircraft. However, the tankers would have to refuel the fighters in
hostile airspace. The B707 is a large unarmed aircraft and would be
very vulnerable to air defenses.

Looking at the two scenarios, air refueling over Saudi Arabia would be
very risky. It would have to be done at low altitude to evade detection
and will probably be at night. Using Iraqi airspace will be somewhat
less difficult as altitude will not be an issue.

Of course, the tankers would have to get to Iraqi airspace and back.
The use of Turkish airspace for the tanker aircraft to enter Iraq is
probably not an option for the same reasons that it is not an option
for the fighters - political sensitivities on the part of the Turks
and operational security considerations on the part of the Israelis.
Another possibility is American cooperation - allow the Israelis to
stage their tankers from an American air base in Iraq. These tankers
could fly to Iraq though international airspace around the Arabian
Peninsula and over the Persian Gulf. It would be too far for them to
return to Israel without landing to refuel, otherwise the Israelis
could refuel the fighters over the Gulf.

American participation? There are other possibilities, from allowing
Israeli fighters to land and refuel at U.S.-controlled bases in Iraq,
to having U.S. Air Force tankers refuel the Israeli aircraft over Iraq.
A diplomatic nightmare, maybe, but certainly a military possibility.

Theoretically, the Israelis could do this, but at great risk of
failure. If they decide to attack Natanz, they will have to inflict
sufficient damage the first time - they probably will not be able to
mount follow-on strikes at other facilities.

When all the analyses are done, there is only one military capable of
the sustained widespread air operations required to eliminate Iran's
nuclear weapons research program - the United States. Again, a
diplomatic nightmare, but certainly a military possibility.


Comments? Email