RETAC21

Sure it could, a quick google search even brings up an Israeli sample: Problem now is, how many F-15s are dedicated to AAR which are not dedicated to escort/CAP (in KSB apocalypsis, they would also be needed to defend Israel), and how much payload is cut back in the receiving F-16. Even being optimist, it would increase the size of the strike package by 10-20 planes at most.

No! No! Please, Ken, crazyinsane105, RETAC, please guys, give KSBrowser a break... I find his posts highly entertaining (emphasis on entertaining - much like junkfood - yummy but no nutritional value ) and wish to read some more "breathless" IDF uberuberwaffenwhatever. I hope BansheeOne is taking notes as the stalled (yes, my fault, mea culpa maxima!) Clansturbation thread needs more input to match the breathless 1000+ pages of Clancy crap. KSBrowswer reminds me of the Iranian AND IDF fan clubs in the model club I used to be with. It is not a good reminder. Don't be so harsh, the numbers look OK, it's just that they don't seem to support his conclusions. See the smaller case - a strike against Iran - by his admission, would be supported by 8 tankers IIRC, doing the numbers, the size of the strike package is 30 aircraft (4 aircraft would be refueled by each tanker by his numbers), deduct 8-10 for CAP (Natanz is 140 Km from Esfahan, where Iran has its F-14s), same number for SEAD/EW, and the actual strike is delivered by 10 planes, say each carries 4 Mk-84 by his numbers, and you are putting 38-40 bombs on a target that is not small, from the wiki: "Natanz is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth. The complex consists of two 25,000 square meter halls and a number of administrative buildings" The blast from a Mk-84 appears to cover 452 sq meters from a quick google search, so it looks like the target cannot be knocked out in one blow - that's 2 missions for a day occupied, and you have not started out with the Iranian missile silos...

?? You sure about that? I don't recall reading anything like that, OTOH the British and French said they would stand by the US no matter what.

I have Radeon as well and works fine, but there seems to be an issue with older radeons - try updating the drivers and maybe changign graphic settings, works in some cases - bt not in all. That's my case, drivers up to date, settings set to minimum, no joy

Graphic card issues with Radeon cards means no more WoT for a time, anyone else having issues? textures are not loading for me.

Both Do you know if their F-15s/16s also employ refuelilng probes? It would have some bearing on the conversation. The IDF has a lot of helicopters that could benefit from KC-130s, but unless a plane has a refueling probe fitted, for our discussions we're only talking about the 707s and not buddy stores or KC-130s. No, they were fitted to the F-4s (and we bought some for our RF-4s), while A-4s used probes too, but the current frontline inventory does not.

Both

So you just blindly point threads that do not relate? Everything you say has burden of proof on other side. That is called "moral cowardness". Nope, the thread is directly related to this, but you want me to prove a negative, which is called "trolling". You made a claim, now back it up. Or keep on trolling.

No, you point where in the thread is what you claim I wrote, it's up to you to prove it, since you made it. Just like Gaza - where you were going to produce the agreement between the PA and Israel.. and I keep waiting for it.

But this still leaves the fundamental question unadressed, 1600Km are barely enough to get to the targets, 2000Km Hi-Hi-Hi is better, but targets beyond Tehran would still be left intact, and the strike packages would be vulnerable to air defences and fighters - no sorties are dedicated to counter air? SEAD? EW? Recon? It less a question of what the IDF is capable of as of the distances involved and that Iran is a big country.

As you did not. E.g. ICBM with nuclear warhead is QUITE different of what I wrote above, which is about one with kinetic penetrator. Also very different from MOP, MOAB etc. because of way larger velocity. So, try not to breath hot air..read. Er, go back again and find where did I write anything of a nuclear warhead, or a MOP, MOAB,... and put the air conditioning, so much hot air is damaging you abilities.

It pays to read Sardaukar: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=35722&view=findpost&p=924725 You should try it sometime

My reading comprehension is fine, thanks, the Op piece - which is what it is - is, like you, confusing facts and fantasy and is non sense. If Obama is working against a Israeli miltiary option then he's actively allied with the Iranians, yet nothing that has come out can come as a surprise to the Iranians, this has been in open sources for at least a year (you seem to have forgotten the Iran is six weeks from the bomb thread!!!). The point that flies over your head (yet again) is not that the Israeli don't have an military option, or that it doesn't exist, but that it's unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program or delay it for long. So now, sit down, relax and catch some breath - don't want you to get all breathless here.

What is your point? I want to know more about the targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government!!! The opinion piece is so breathless it's not worthy of consideration.

So now the US and Iran are allied against Israel? I quote from you Op piece: " it is blatantly clear that reports in the past week alone have caused Israel substantive diplomatic damage, and possibly even military and operational damage." Also, an interesting interpretation on your infantry division/artillery corps scare: "The third objective of the recent publications is to scare the Israeli public via an apocalyptic account of possible retaliation by Iran and its “clients.” Not to speak about this pearl: "Needless to say, this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies" the whut?!? More to the point, this map helps understand the problem: All Iranian facilities are at the edge of the maximum combat radius that can realistically be expected of planes operating out of Israel, unless they base at Azerbaijan, and there's a suspected facility - what if there's not just one?

Can't agree more KSB, aren't you mixing range with combat radius? Straight line distance Tel-Aviv to Quom (more or less what any jet would have to do to get to the Iranian facilities we know): 946.41 miles - 1523 Km - 822.35 nautical miles. That's 3.000 Km range, flying a straight line that would take them over Baghdag, once you add a reserve, combat time and evasive course the distance shots up even more. Going no further than Global Security there's this: "There are conflicting reports concerning the F-16I combat radius, but the most reliable source reports a combat radius of 2,100 km, on par with the F-15I. The Israeli military would not disclose the exact range of the jet, but one senior air force officer said, "it can reach the capitals of all the countries in the region." One report says that "it has an 820 km non-refueling radius of operation, sufficient to reach both Libya and Iran" -- but a glance at a map reveals that 820 kilometers from Israel is short of Baghdad, and far short of the 1,500 kilometers need to reach Tehran. One report suggest that the F-16I has an unrefueled combat strike radius of 1,640 kilometers without refueling. Another report relates that the external fuel capacity in conformal fuel tanks increases the aircraft range to 800 miles (1,500 km). One published reports states that the external fuel tanks above the central fuselage, extend the range of the jet and the reach of the Israeli air force by 25 percent." Not only that, this will not cover all Iranian facilities (both missile and nuclear) and assumes the Iranians don't disperse their nuclear industries (not that they lack warning, do they?). Assuming all are known, of course.

If he is who he claims he is, he has a vested interest as a contractor for the USG, but the claims are so outrageous I really cannot start to counter them.

Seen that claim too, but I too believe it was in error, the T-62 was issued as a medium tank to Soviet divisions in Germany.

Eh, nope, there's Jordan, Turkey, the part of Iraq that definitely is not Shia, the Gulf emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, even Yemen! all of whom harbor less love for this Shia revolution than hate for Israel, while "parts of Afghanistan" is mostly occupied/controlled by NATO. You think they will happily roll over to bow to the Shia revolution that will find ties to bind disparate peoples that have never ever been together since the Persian empire? just sayin'.

Feeling apocalyptical today, eh? what about the sunni states that will also be targets of this World War?

There was a RF-18 version proposed, I recall seeing photos of it but it didn't went forward.

No, because people will always think it can't happen to them!

No, Iran can inflict casualties, maybe even sink a US carrier. But defeat the US? I can't see that happening. Its to a point where both sides can inflict enough casualties on each other where a war is just not even worth it. Otherwise if attaining victory over Iran were that easy, we would've hit them already. I know, it was a rethorical question to our latest Ken, should have put an smiley. In case of a war with Iran, the USN will keep its carriers in the Arabian Sea, therefore forcing Iran to locate them - which, with the resources avaiable to them, would be impossible. By the same token, operating SSNs in shallow waters is suicidal if the opponent has a decent ASW capability - that's not the case with Iran either. Some years ago a US SSN experimented with hunting SSKs with active sonar, using both its superior speed and the range of its ADCAPs to keep out of harm's way. If air superiority is achieved over the Gulf, the Strait and the Arabian Sea (and let's not kid ourselves, it shouldn't be too hard vs Iran), SSNs can operate with much freedom in pursuing the Iranian Kilos. Just that would negate 2 out of 3 vectors - leaving the feeble surface forces and the irregular pasdaran boghammers - the first are Harpoon meat, the second cannot operate in rough seas, and when the seas are calm, the helicopters are out, so a carrier group is not likely to be bothered for long. Coast defences are another matter, but on this, I defer to Ken Estes, who knows the subject inside out. I'm not too worried about the Iranian Kilos as much as I am by their mini subs. They have only 3 kilos, but have anywhere between 14-19 mini submarines. We've already seen what damage those small suckers are capable of inflicting in the Korean peninsula. The US obviously would never put its carriers in the Gulf during a conflict with Iran. SSNs make a much more sensible idea. Problem with the minisubs is detecting the target, in the Korean case, the frigates were patrolling the same contested waters day in and day out, so eventually they would cross the path of the minisubs - in the case of the strait, transit times would be unpredictable and something similar to the swamp tactics used on the Med in WW2 would work against submarines that are strictly limited both in surveillance capabilities and mobility.

No, Iran can inflict casualties, maybe even sink a US carrier. But defeat the US? I can't see that happening. Its to a point where both sides can inflict enough casualties on each other where a war is just not even worth it. Otherwise if attaining victory over Iran were that easy, we would've hit them already. I know, it was a rethorical question to our latest Ken, should have put an smiley. In case of a war with Iran, the USN will keep its carriers in the Arabian Sea, therefore forcing Iran to locate them - which, with the resources avaiable to them, would be impossible. By the same token, operating SSNs in shallow waters is suicidal if the opponent has a decent ASW capability - that's not the case with Iran either. Some years ago a US SSN experimented with hunting SSKs with active sonar, using both its superior speed and the range of its ADCAPs to keep out of harm's way. If air superiority is achieved over the Gulf, the Strait and the Arabian Sea (and let's not kid ourselves, it shouldn't be too hard vs Iran), SSNs can operate with much freedom in pursuing the Iranian Kilos. Just that would negate 2 out of 3 vectors - leaving the feeble surface forces and the irregular pasdaran boghammers - the first are Harpoon meat, the second cannot operate in rough seas, and when the seas are calm, the helicopters are out, so a carrier group is not likely to be bothered for long. Coast defences are another matter, but on this, I defer to Ken Estes, who knows the subject inside out.