Coming Conflict With Iran

[Ivanhoe]

Man, I leave you guys unsupervised for a few days and look what happens!

 

Just for fun, lets pick a sustained daily IDF sortie rate; 100, 500, 1000, 10k, whatever. After about day two, what are the Israelis going to be bombing? I think about what I've read about the Desert Shield/Desert Storm air war, and the relatively massive infrastructure cobbled together to produce the daily phone-book-sized Air Tasking Orders. The Iraqi air defenses were pre-flattened, allowing free flight of reconnaissance assets, plus the US could task all of its space assets into generating a nonstop imagery feed. Can the IDF generate target candidates anywhere near that rate?

 

I can believe that some number of daily sorties would/could be used against nuke or other strategic targets as an area denial thing, but there's a point where this hypothetical air war starts looking like the WWII Allied bombing campaign against Germany, which was inefficient as hell.

[Sardaukar]

But the buddy tankers need to have enough fuel to transfer, therefore F-15s, or you are going to have a chain of buddy tankers from Israel to Iran, cutting back numbers available for the strike. You can refuel tankers from tankers a lá Black Buck, but only cutting back the numbers available for other missions, the USN used KA-6s for a reason. I don't know what the fuel fraction for the last buddy tankers is going to be, but it's going to be marginal in the best of cases.

 

See here for a discussion of this point: http://www.airliners...ad.main/141219/

 

My breathless pal, since the fuel would come from external tanks...aircraft type would be irrelevant. Also buddy refuel tank capacity would be standard and irrelevant from aircraft type. As said earlier, IAF usually uses larger drop tanks anyway than others. Tanker fighters would use 3 drop tanks obviously, 2 to extend their own range and one buddy tank. They would fly 2 missions, one inbound, one outbound.

 

Must hurt you, my pal, to realize that this would bring all targets into strike range in Iran. Remember to breath.

[KSBrower]

First, the IDF/SAF does not generally package. They self escort over long range.I believe they might not necessarily conduct a sequential air supremacy/SEAD campaign as almost certainly would NATO forces. I believe they will launch continuous attacks, not massive packages. This better optimizes exploitation of their real time BDA and data links and vastly complicates air interception.......although the air to air results will likely be VERY one sided.

 

History has consistently shown that for short range unrefueled sorties the maximimum number an aircraft with one aircrew can sustain is about 2.5 sorties a day. For fourth generation, reliable, 24/7 capable airframes this increases to about 7 per day, if about 2.5 aircrew are available for each aircraft. At short range at the beginning of an air operation or campaign these daily sortie rates might temporarily surge by about 30%. During Deset Storm the daily sortie rate for long range sorties , with one aircrew per aircraft was about 1.25/day. As I have explained earlier USMC AV-8Bs, which were forward based, and unconstrained by the pre planned and rigid ATO, peaked at 2.6 sorties during the first day of the ground offensive. If a high aircrew to aircraft ratio is available the daily sortie rate at long range is limited by hours. Past experience is that about 85% of fourth generation jets land mission ready. The remainder need repairs. The Israelis minimize turn around time by using BITE, tied to their data links during the return trip. That means spares, specialized tools/test gear and repair personnel will often be pre deployed to meet the returning aircraft. I have no data on the MTTR, but that explains my use of 3.3 sorties per day for long range multi role aircraft, of which the Israelis have 290. Beyond a range of 2,000Km they would have to employ air to air refueling. My estimate is their 8 KC707s could support about 240 sorties a day. It is entirely feasible that the Israelis can mobilize more drogue equipped tankers then is generally perceived and there is no reason they could not fit probes to their F-15/16s.

[Sardaukar]

Man, I leave you guys unsupervised for a few days and look what happens! Just for fun, lets pick a sustained daily IDF sortie rate; 100, 500, 1000, 10k, whatever. After about day two, what are the Israelis going to be bombing? I think about what I've read about the Desert Shield/Desert Storm air war, and the relatively massive infrastructure cobbled together to produce the daily phone-book-sized Air Tasking Orders. The Iraqi air defenses were pre-flattened, allowing free flight of reconnaissance assets, plus the US could task all of its space assets into generating a nonstop imagery feed. Can the IDF generate target candidates anywhere near that rate? I can believe that some number of daily sorties would/could be used against nuke or other strategic targets as an area denial thing, but there's a point where this hypothetical air war starts looking like the WWII Allied bombing campaign against Germany, which was inefficient as hell.

 

Try reading about 6-day War and Yom Kippur about IAF capability even then. Never assume. And never use WWII area bombing as in comparison with modern smart weapons. You should know better. Can they generate target candidates? These are immobile installations...possibly they know quite lot about them. It's not like hunting mobile SCUD launchers.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Sardaukar

[Sardaukar]

First, the IDF/SAF does not generally package. They self escort over long range.I believe they might not necessarily conduct a sequential air supremacy/SEAD campaign as almost certainly would NATO forces. I believe they will launch continuous attacks, not massive packages. This better optimizes exploitation of their real time BDA and data links and vastly complicates air interception.......although the air to air results will likely be VERY one sided.

 

History has consistently shown that for short range unrefueled sorties the maximimum number an aircraft with one aircrew can sustain is about 2.5 sorties a day. For fourth generation, reliable, 24/7 capable airframes this increases to about 7 per day, if about 2.5 aircrew are available for each aircraft. At short range at the beginning of an air operation or campaign these daily sortie rates might temporarily surge by about 30%. During Deset Storm the daily sortie rate for long range sorties , with one aircrew per aircraft was about 1.25/day. As I have explained earlier USMC AV-8Bs, which were forward based, and unconstrained by the pre planned and rigid ATO, peaked at 2.6 sorties during the first day of the ground offensive. If a high aircrew to aircraft ratio is available the daily sortie rate at long range is limited by hours. Past experience is that about 85% of fourth generation jets land mission ready. The remainder need repairs. The Israelis minimize turn around time by using BITE, tied to their data links during the return trip. That means spares, specialized tools/test gear and repair personnel will often be pre deployed to meet the returning aircraft. I have no data on the MTTR, but that explains my use of 3.3 sorties per day for long range multi role aircraft, of which the Israelis have 290. Beyond a range of 2,000Km they would have to employ air to air refueling. My estimate is their 8 KC707s could support about 240 sorties a day. It is entirely feasible that the Israelis can mobilize more drogue equipped tankers then is generally perceived and there is no reason they could not fit probes to their F-15/16s.

 

Well, KSB..I'd think your numbers are bit optimistic.

 

No way in hell IAF would get 240 attack sorties out of 8 tankers per day into Iran. Not going to happen..not with help of God, not with help of Jesus, not with help of Allah, not with help of Satan...no. My estimate would be getting 60 sorties per day out from tankers and another 60 from buddy refuelling. Obviously, former would be used vs. more distant targets. 120 would still be quite respectable number.

 

I think your figures are short-range attack figures in case of war with neighbouring states. 2.5-3 sorties per day per plane in that case sounds about right. Intensively maybe even 3.5 per day for couple of days. Long-range strike mission...no fookin way.

 

And, like hell IAF would not use "strike package" vs. possibly actually defended targets...so I'd think 20-25% of those planes would be A2A/SEAD. "Self-escorting" is bit of oxymoron, vs. IADS and enemy fighters, no matter how obsolete.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Sardaukar

[RETAC21]

But the buddy tankers need to have enough fuel to transfer, therefore F-15s, or you are going to have a chain of buddy tankers from Israel to Iran, cutting back numbers available for the strike. You can refuel tankers from tankers a lá Black Buck, but only cutting back the numbers available for other missions, the USN used KA-6s for a reason. I don't know what the fuel fraction for the last buddy tankers is going to be, but it's going to be marginal in the best of cases.

 

See here for a discussion of this point: http://www.airliners...ad.main/141219/

 

My breathless pal, since the fuel would come from external tanks...aircraft type would be irrelevant. Also buddy refuel tank capacity would be standard and irrelevant from aircraft type. As said earlier, IAF usually uses larger drop tanks anyway than others. Tanker fighters would use 3 drop tanks obviously, 2 to extend their own range and one buddy tank. They would fly 2 missions, one inbound, one outbound.

 

Must hurt you, my pal, to realize that this would bring all targets into strike range in Iran. Remember to breath.

 

I realise that being clueless is painful for you, so again you need to resort to personal attacks By you numbers, 1 tank is being used to bring the other tank, the other is the buddy store, so you are transferring what? the internal fuel that is needed to go back to base? You sure the Saudis are not going to mind all those IDF-AF pilots ejecting all over the place?

[Sardaukar]

But the buddy tankers need to have enough fuel to transfer, therefore F-15s, or you are going to have a chain of buddy tankers from Israel to Iran, cutting back numbers available for the strike. You can refuel tankers from tankers a lá Black Buck, but only cutting back the numbers available for other missions, the USN used KA-6s for a reason. I don't know what the fuel fraction for the last buddy tankers is going to be, but it's going to be marginal in the best of cases.

 

See here for a discussion of this point: http://www.airliners...ad.main/141219/

 

My breathless pal, since the fuel would come from external tanks...aircraft type would be irrelevant. Also buddy refuel tank capacity would be standard and irrelevant from aircraft type. As said earlier, IAF usually uses larger drop tanks anyway than others. Tanker fighters would use 3 drop tanks obviously, 2 to extend their own range and one buddy tank. They would fly 2 missions, one inbound, one outbound.

 

Must hurt you, my pal, to realize that this would bring all targets into strike range in Iran. Remember to breath.

 

I realise that being clueless is painful for you, so again you need to resort to personal attacks By you numbers, 1 tank is being used to bring the other tank, the other is the buddy store, so you are transferring what? the internal fuel that is needed to go back to base? You sure the Saudis are not going to mind all those IDF-AF pilots ejecting all over the place?

 

There are no personal attacks. "Pal" is to tease you, since it has double meaning. You can use "Zionist" with me if you want to..not "Jew" tho, since I am not one. I am not even "Christian".

To discussion, apart from reduction of range, since it is used for in-flight refuelling of OTHER planes. To "top up" other planes. "In and out" refuelling this way may add 50% to plane combat radius.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Sardaukar

[KSBrower]

The fast jet daily sortie rates I have quoted are not guesses, nor are they estimates. They are what the Israelis base their war reserves on and what they train to. I first heard about these rates in 92, briefed the USAF on them thereafter, and published them in JDR in 97. Not one very senior officer I talked to in the USAF or RAF questioned my data.

 

Each KC-707 can refuel at least 10 aircraft. If the Israelis can generate 7 sorties a day with F-16s they can certainly generate 3 per day for KC-707s. Given that the KC-707 has a much higher MGTOW then KC-135s at moderate range it can transfer more fuel. I consider my estimate of 240 per day to be very conservative. Remember, that Israeli fast jets have extremely long combat ranges unrefueled and will use standoff munitions in many cases. I believe that air to air refueling will not be needed on every mission. Moreover, we cannot be sure where Israeli aircraft take off or land, can we ?

[istvan47]

One thing: what about the iranian defences? They have still the F-14, after all. Not that many OK, but still, iranians are not Hetzbollah. You cannot really bomb them at your will, like to drop lemons from a tree. What if, Israel starts to lost some F-15 and F-16, and Iranian TV starts to show the wrecks and the pilots (alive, or killed)? Is it not yet well known how propaganda is powerful?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UekpA9gsqtY

 

I remember still quite well our pilot 'Cocciolone' when he was featured and inquired by Iraki TV. Not that great sight, even if his name was a source of eternal ROTFL. A sort of 'Schettino' ante-litteram. .

Edited April 2, 2012 by istvan47

[urbanoid]

Moreover, we cannot be sure where Israeli aircraft take off or land, can we ?

 

Reaching agreement with the Azeris to use their bases is the best option possible, they have a border with Iran and the IAF a/c wouldn't have to fly over Arab countries.

[Sardaukar]

It is always good to threat for extinction when country is run by Sayeret Matkal

Edited April 2, 2012 by Sardaukar

[Sardaukar]

The fast jet daily sortie rates I have quoted are not guesses, nor are they estimates. They are what the Israelis base their war reserves on and what they train to. I first heard about these rates in 92, briefed the USAF on them thereafter, and published them in JDR in 97. Not one very senior officer I talked to in the USAF or RAF questioned my data. Each KC-707 can refuel at least 10 aircraft. If the Israelis can generate 7 sorties a day with F-16s they can certainly generate 3 per day for KC-707s. Given that the KC-707 has a much higher MGTOW then KC-135s at moderate range it can transfer more fuel. I consider my estimate of 240 per day to be very conservative. Remember, that Israeli fast jets have extremely long combat ranges unrefueled and will use standoff munitions in many cases. I believe that air to air refueling will not be needed on every mission. Moreover, we cannot be sure where Israeli aircraft take off or land, can we ?

 

KC 707..I'd scale it down to 6 per cycle.

[crazyinsane105]

One thing: what about the iranian defences? They have still the F-14, after all. Not that many OK, but still, iranians are not Hetzbollah. You cannot really bomb them at your will, like to drop lemons from a tree. What if, Israel starts to lost some F-15 and F-16, and Iranian TV starts to show the wrecks and the pilots (alive, or killed)? Is it not yet well known how propaganda is powerful?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UekpA9gsqtY

 

I remember still quite well our pilot 'Cocciolone' when he was featured and inquired by Iraki TV. Not that great sight, even if his name was a source of eternal ROTFL. A sort of 'Schettino' ante-litteram. .

 

To think the IRIAF will simply be twiddling its fingers in the midst of all these threats is laughable. Iran has a small number of F-14s but also a handful of Mig-29s, and I would not underestimate the capability of the IRIAF. Sure they definitely aren't going to defeat the USAF or USN, but can they protect simply one or two targets and fly CAP? I don't doubt it. Even if they manage to get 20 aircraft in the air of varying sorts (F-14s, Mig-29s, and F-7M), that'll present the IDF will a huge challenge, especially if they are going to be running low on fuel. And refueling in mid air over Iranian territory with that many aircraft and hoping that Iranian radars don't pick it up....yeah, I think that's a being a bit too optimistic...

[Josh]

The fast jet daily sortie rates I have quoted are not guesses, nor are they estimates. They are what the Israelis base their war reserves on and what they train to. I first heard about these rates in 92, briefed the USAF on them thereafter, and published them in JDR in 97. Not one very senior officer I talked to in the USAF or RAF questioned my data.

 

Alright, so these sortie rates and ranges represent what the IAF could accomplish...before they got any of their longest ranged aircraft?

 

I notice you've never circled back to one of your other original contentions that the US has no combat aircraft in theater, except for carrier based aviation. Would like to revise that estimate?

[RETAC21]

To think the IRIAF will simply be twiddling its fingers in the midst of all these threats is laughable. Iran has a small number of F-14s but also a handful of Mig-29s, and I would not underestimate the capability of the IRIAF. Sure they definitely aren't going to defeat the USAF or USN, but can they protect simply one or two targets and fly CAP? I don't doubt it. Even if they manage to get 20 aircraft in the air of varying sorts (F-14s, Mig-29s, and F-7M), that'll present the IDF will a huge challenge, especially if they are going to be running low on fuel. And refueling in mid air over Iranian territory with that many aircraft and hoping that Iranian radars don't pick it up....yeah, I think that's a being a bit too optimistic...

 

This is a big if - the Israelis managed to shut down the Syrian air defence network when they bombed their reactor, since Iranian AD is less sophisticated, there's no reason they cannot repeat the performance IMO, leaving only the interceptors. The F-14 with AIM-54s is something to take into account, but will those AIM-54s (if any are left) be serviceable after 34 years? I seriously doubt it. The Iranian MiG-29 is again nothing to write home about - they just managed to put one ex-Iraqui one back in service, the others date from the early 90s.

 

OTOH, the Iranians have managed to keep all this planes flying without US support, and by now they may well have been able to replicate the electronics on the Phoenixes, so they may be operational after all. According to all I see, Iran has 2 squadrons of F-14s.

Edited April 3, 2012 by RETAC21

[RETAC21]

The fast jet daily sortie rates I have quoted are not guesses, nor are they estimates. They are what the Israelis base their war reserves on and what they train to. I first heard about these rates in 92, briefed the USAF on them thereafter, and published them in JDR in 97. Not one very senior officer I talked to in the USAF or RAF questioned my data.

 

Why would they question your data and why would they know what the IDF is capable of?

 

Each KC-707 can refuel at least 10 aircraft. If the Israelis can generate 7 sorties a day with F-16s they can certainly generate 3 per day for KC-707s. Given that the KC-707 has a much higher MGTOW then KC-135s at moderate range it can transfer more fuel. I consider my estimate of 240 per day to be very conservative. Remember, that Israeli fast jets have extremely long combat ranges unrefueled and will use standoff munitions in many cases. I believe that air to air refueling will not be needed on every mission. Moreover, we cannot be sure where Israeli aircraft take off or land, can we ?

 

Relevant:

 

 

from here: http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/vms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=41

 

Where exactly do you plan on refueling?, say you can use 80.000 ibs

 

F-16 fuel capacity internal+2 dt: 12.000 ibs* + 3000 ibs in CFT = 15.000 Ibs - if it needs to replenish 50% of the fuel, that's 10 aircraft per tanker**

F-15E: 35.550 ibs*** - but if the F-15 needs to replenish 50% of its fuel it's only 4 per tanker.

 

* For which the USAF calculates a combat radius of 860 Km.

** And here comes the cave-at - measuring against actual Israeli performance, Operation Opera, the F-16 internal+external capacity (the number I put down) would enable to fly 1.600 Km more or less, but it was barely enough to get them to Baghdag, add 25% more fuel and optimistically assume it equals to a 25% increase in range (it won't due to drag and increased fuel consumption to push all that fuel) and you get - barely - to 2000 Km, so if you want them to self escort and to avoid defences, you are going to need to refuel.

*** Maximum combat radius per globalsecurity: 1853 Km - so some fuel would be needed to get back home.

 

So the absolute best case is 10 F-16Is x 7 tankers = 70 aircraft per package, but if the Israelis don't do packages, then this total drops off as the tankers need to be on station and the fuel available for transfer drops.

[beans4]

Maybe I missed something, but I'm not getting how the Israeli F-15s and F-16s can take off with more payload than US versions, Would this not require higher thrust engines, and if so have they been fitted with them? My understanding is that the difference between a 707 and a KC-135 is primarily fuselage diameter and wing construction, so how would that allow a KC-707 to take off with, and offload more fuel?

[istvan47]

Perhaps adding some tons of overweight to the normal max take off weights. As example, the Tornado should be 27-28 tons, but it was even tried with 30-32 tons MTOW, with 12-13 external load (even if i don't know how it was obtained). Once i remember this episode: that a Swordfish, in Northern Africa, was soaded with 1130 kg instead of the max 680 kg or so load. It took off after 13 km run (?!) but it took off neverthless. The 9,2 tons external in F-16 is usually given as 'teorical', and the pratical is 5,4 or so. But, with 9,2 tons the aicraft cannot hold also internal fuel. Unless you take off with an overloaded aicraft, stressing its capabilities. After all, with all such power, the F-16 would be that, just like almost any aicraft, F-15 included.

 

When F-16 attacked the iraki reactor (Osirak), the flew around 965 km with 2x2000 lb and 3 ext fuel tanks (1,100+ 2x1,400 liters?) and arguably ammos, 2 AIM and perhaps ECM. Not that bad for a light fighter.

[crazyinsane105]

To think the IRIAF will simply be twiddling its fingers in the midst of all these threats is laughable. Iran has a small number of F-14s but also a handful of Mig-29s, and I would not underestimate the capability of the IRIAF. Sure they definitely aren't going to defeat the USAF or USN, but can they protect simply one or two targets and fly CAP? I don't doubt it. Even if they manage to get 20 aircraft in the air of varying sorts (F-14s, Mig-29s, and F-7M), that'll present the IDF will a huge challenge, especially if they are going to be running low on fuel. And refueling in mid air over Iranian territory with that many aircraft and hoping that Iranian radars don't pick it up....yeah, I think that's a being a bit too optimistic...

 

This is a big if - the Israelis managed to shut down the Syrian air defence network when they bombed their reactor, since Iranian AD is less sophisticated, there's no reason they cannot repeat the performance IMO, leaving only the interceptors. The F-14 with AIM-54s is something to take into account, but will those AIM-54s (if any are left) be serviceable after 34 years? I seriously doubt it. The Iranian MiG-29 is again nothing to write home about - they just managed to put one ex-Iraqui one back in service, the others date from the early 90s.

 

OTOH, the Iranians have managed to keep all this planes flying without US support, and by now they may well have been able to replicate the electronics on the Phoenixes, so they may be operational after all. According to all I see, Iran has 2 squadrons of F-14s.

 

 

Syria's SAM network is very robust on paper, and would appear to offer a significant degree of protection at first glance, but this is not necessarily the case. Against a limited incursion, the Syrian air defense network remains capable, despite the reliance on aging Soviet-era systems. This is one likely factor which drove the Israeli Air Force to circumvent SAM-defended areas when striking the Dayr az Zawr suspect nuclear facility in 2007. Said reliance on Soviet-era SAM systems will provide a serious handicap when facing a major air incursion by a modern opponent. It is time for Syria to modernize its strategic SAM defenses if it desires to retain the ability to defend its airspace in the 21st Century.

 

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/09/syrian-sam-network.html

 

 

There's also the issue that Iran has Tor-M1s and possibly some Pantir-S1 (neither of which were present during the 2007 raid in Syria) and those will be limited to protecting key targets the Israelis will be after. On top of that, the Iranians don't have access to long range AAMs in large quantities, so hence they'll do their best to get into dogfights with the Israeli aircraft. That itself will make the Israelis lose fuel, and air to air refueling tankers are quite large targets in the air. You have seven of them flying over Iranian territory....the risk is quite high they can be intercepted and shot down by either SAMs or interceptors.

[Ivanhoe]

Try reading about 6-day War and Yom Kippur about IAF capability even then. Never assume. And never use WWII area bombing as in comparison with modern smart weapons. You should know better. Can they generate target candidates? These are immobile installations...possibly they know quite lot about them. It's not like hunting mobile SCUD launchers.

 

Yes, but unless Iran is going to trundle across Iraq or Turkey amongst others to get at Israel with ground forces, sortie rates from 1967 and 1973 are not applicable. Performing a high-risk mission to bomb tank parks, truck motor pools, infantry barracks, etc. is probably not going to make good risk/benefit sense for the IDF; only hitting targets of strategic value are. And that means NBC weapon delivery sites, missile/rocket manufacturing/maintenance/storage sites, the various sites involved in the nuke development program, and then ... what? Taking out bridges, power plants, dams etc. have a punitive effect, but not a particularly strategic effect.

[DADI]

so if we look at the option of an Israeli air strike as doable..

The question is, as mentioned, how many targets are there, and what would those targets be?

 

Attacking power plants etc, is of strategic value, but for a different kind of strategic purpose.

Israel does not wish to "punish" Iran. They are already suffering terrible punishment for having such a leadership.

The objective is one: Stop Iran's nuclear military ability, from materializing to a usable nuclear bomb/s, and make the reconstruction of that option, unbearable.

 

For the second part, I believe that objective is already 70% made.

As for the first... Does that really make 700 sorties a day? We are talking about specific inventory here..

[RETAC21]

See here. http://csis.org/files/publication/100323_Options_todealwith_Iran.pdf

 

the bad news first:

We conclude that a military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be

along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route. However, the

number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would

be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.

 

Iran Nuclear Facilities

The main facilities which are critical nodes in Iran’s Nuclear infrastructure that can stop or

at the least delay the program:

 Nuclear Fuel Cycle:

• Esfahan : Nuclear Research Center. Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF).

• Natanz : Uranium Enrichment Facility

• Fordow: Uranium Enrichment Facility

Plutonium Production Nuclear Reactor:

• Arak : Heavy Water Plant and future Plutonium production center

[KSBrower]

The CSIS study assumed a MGTOW of 37500 lbs for Israeli F-16s. It ignored all F-15s except for the 25 Is, as well as the F-16C/Ds, as well as sortie rate. It was either amateurish or deliberate disinformation. As I have explained time and again it is 48000lb for the C/D and 52000lb for the I, tested and verified by the USAF prior to deliverey. In 82 IDF/SAF F-16As, used 370 gallon drop tanks, not the 600 gallon tanks used by Israeli C/D/Is, nor did they then have conformal tanks. The known maximum fuel load of Israeli F-16s is nearly 21,000lbs....and it could be more. The F-15As that were used as escorts in 82 did not yet have conformal tanks either. Range is very significantly increased when the engine is employed at war rating with 38,000 lbs of thrust, although the Israelis will generally use it boosted at dry military power.. Think of the 747SP vs the original 747, same type of impact...higher altitude during return trip, less drag, higher speed, more range.

 

I expect the Israelis to use their extremely capable Gulfstream 550 AWACS offensively. With their data links the air to air kill ratio will be exceedingly high, anything lower then 20:1 would be a surprise to me and inconsistent with prior combat results and international exercises.

 

. By the way the reason the USAF and RAF did not question me was because they knew I was right. I was asked by an O-10 to surpress my report to prevent Congress from knowing.

 

I understand the sortie rate data I have provided seems shockingly high. It is, but it represents Israeli wartime capability. It should be noted however that there is no certainty that the Israeli government will direct its military to launch a full strategic air operation. They have just briefed their cabinet on the the results of a three week rocket/missile assault by Iran and its allies, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, when the IDF is fully capable of over running the areas from where most of these could be fired within a few days. I have never met any Israeli civilian or low ranking officer who had any understanding of the real military balance of power in the middle east. A very insightfull friend of mine ( an internationally recognized analyst ) said " They ( meaning the Israelis ) believe there own disinformation and propaganda." He was right. David, after all had a standoff PGM, and little David has grown into a Goliath who is now at the leading edge of technology.

[Corinthian]

Since you said this:

 

The CSIS study <snip> was either amateurish or deliberate disinformation.

 

Pardon me by saying this:

 

I find your braggadocio (especially this: By the way the reason the USAF and RAF did not question me was because they knew I was right. I was asked by an O-10 to surpress my report to prevent Congress from knowing. and this: A very insightfull friend of mine ( an internationally recognized analyst )) funny and so remain skeptical of your claims.

 

I'll grant you the satisfaction at laughing at my skepticism if the IAF manages successfully to significantly delay Iran's nuke ambitions, and even so, at least I was happily proven wrong. But until that happens, colour me unimpressed.

 

It's the claims of "I am right" and "a friend who is an internationally recognized blah blah blah" that I find suspect (and to such people who always say such things about themselves, I often reply "Why do you keep on giving me your resume?").

[Ken Estes]

Tomas, your PM box is full [again].

 

Ken