The Middle East War

[Perun]

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

@lucklucky Listen, the idea of a missile force is something I support in principle.

Ground and air launched EXTRA rockets with 150km range, possibly Predator Hawk with 300km range and even ground and sea launched LORA SRBMs with +400km range.

All these might be necessary to facilitate a precise first strike on first circle enemies like Hezbollah and Syria, faster than aircraft can respond and as an alternative if they're shut down for runway repairs.

But even that is considered almost prohibitively expensive and requiring some concessions. As is, Israel spends about 5% of GDP on defense. 

If we assume that Israel will want to add MRBMs to the list - those will necessarily cost much, much more than even a single LORA (~$1M USD).

Israel cannot afford to spend a billion dollars in a single attack on Iran. It also cannot afford to strive for symmetry with Iran considering that more advanced air defenses are within Iran's reach.

For projects like that, Israel will require additional foreign assistance which will make it dependent, in turn a rather catastrophic outcome considering how averse western nations are to self defense, and doubly so against oil exporters.

[bojan]

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

... We saw a few breaking during descent, on their own.

Break or have warhead/upper stage that separates on reentry?

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

17 minutes ago, bojan said:

Break or have warhead/upper stage that separates on reentry?

Since it wasn't anything uniform (for all entering missiles), I'd say simply break.

Tried looking for the source, couldn't find it. I guess what I saw may have been either fragments of an intercepted BM, or a malfunctioning one.

Edited April 14 by Mighty_Zuk

[RETAC21]

8 hours ago, Josh said:

The Iranian attack seemed to be large but rather ineffective, perhaps intentionally as a way of responding while minimizing escalation. 

This. Pretty much doing something without doing something irreparable, as the Iranian regime does not want to pay the dues of their meddling in other countries' affaires.

[seahawk]

2 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

This. Pretty much doing something without doing something irreparable, as the Iranian regime does not want to pay the dues of their meddling in other countries' affaires.

They fired 3 waves of MRBM and the last wave was met with next to no resistance. We have hits on major installations of IDF. Strangely we have no reports of the Iranians hitting civilian infrastructure, so the missiles must not be totally imprecise, which means that the chance that they hit something within the airbases increases.

[TrustMe]

Stupid Royal Navy ex sea lord saying we should attack Iran while only having a quater of the alloted aircaft assigned to the two carriers  

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-must-send-carrier-strike-group-middle-east-show-force-iran-3006137

Edited April 14 by TrustMe

[Daan]

39 minutes ago, seahawk said:

They fired 3 waves of MRBM and the last wave was met with next to no resistance. We have hits on major installations of IDF. Strangely we have no reports of the Iranians hitting civilian infrastructure, so the missiles must not be totally imprecise, which means that the chance that they hit something within the airbases increases.

Except for impacts of ballistic missiles within the perimeter of the large Nevatim airbase, I have not seen any reports of damage elsewhere. Perhaps you could share a link?

[Mighty_Zuk]

44 minutes ago, Daan said:

Except for impacts of ballistic missiles within the perimeter of the large Nevatim airbase, I have not seen any reports of damage elsewhere. Perhaps you could share a link?

He referred to the Nevatim AFB. 7 BMs weren't intercepted and all fell in or around Nevatim.

[RETAC21]

4 hours ago, seahawk said:

They fired 3 waves of MRBM and the last wave was met with next to no resistance. We have hits on major installations of IDF. Strangely we have no reports of the Iranians hitting civilian infrastructure, so the missiles must not be totally imprecise, which means that the chance that they hit something within the airbases increases.

"We"?

Airbases are very, very difficult to put out of action, even if hit. 7 missiles is a negligible force.

 

[mandeb48]

a face-saving attack. Both side can claim victory and everyone is happy. 

[Josh]

18 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

a face-saving attack. Both side can claim victory and everyone is happy. 

I doubt Bibi will accept that. Even if he did, his radical right wing coalition will not.

[Mighty_Zuk]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

I doubt Bibi will accept that. Even if he did, his radical right wing coalition will not.

Unfortunately that's just a misunderstanding of the current coalition. Netanyahu didn't select competent ministers and committee members. He essentially gave useful idiots some jobs. They're all his useful idiots no matter how hawkish they present themselves as and how dovish he is in practice. 

Those pressuring him to retaliate are mostly the political center which opposes him.

[mandeb48]

Well. Is right. For Bibi, a war would be better, mainly if he gets the US to fight it for him.

But for Biden will the novel of peace come? If Obama and Kissinger won...

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Stupid Royal Navy ex sea lord saying we should attack Iran while only having a quater of the alloted aircaft assigned to the two carriers  

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-must-send-carrier-strike-group-middle-east-show-force-iran-3006137

Well it worked for Nelson, and he didnt even have any F35's.

 

[sunday]

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

Copy + Paste of a post I made in another forum:

Appeasing a Paper Tiger

Israel and Russia are de facto enemies. This is an undeniable fact. Both are, however, politically resilient to making deals with entities they each deem hostile. One such deal is deconfliction over Syria.

One might ask - Russia is preoccupied in Ukraine, its AD is fragile, and in Syria in particular it's numerically inferior, so why worry?

TLDR - Israel needs perfectly clear skies over Syria and Iraq, which together form a direct path between Israel and Iran.

 

Israel's ability to jam or destroy Syrian and Russian AD is unquestionable. But if either notices they're being jammed or social media report explosions, this will give Iran the early warning it needs to take quick measures to beef up defenses or take mitigating actions.

 

One might then ask - why not destroy them months or years ahead of a strike?

First, Iran could seize the opportunity to sprint toward some milestone in the nuclear program while its alert is heightened.

Second, this will open the region up to many geopolitical unknowns. For example if China decides to increase its support for Russia, or to supply Syria with replacements, this perpetual arms race could keep Syrian skies constantly contested.

This assertion simply relies on Russia folding and retreating from Syria if it's threatened by Israel which is not assured.

 

In the current state, Syria does not fire upon Israeli aircraft, and neither does Russia.

Israeli F-35 could easily evade all SAMs and strike in Iran but Israel will have to deploy more vulnerable assets such as unprotected refueling tankers, ELINT aircraft, SAR assets, and 4th gen fighter aircraft.

If such aircraft are forced into evasive maneuvers and DEAD in stand-in range, they could be pushed out of their energetic envelope in terms of fuel capacity.

However, Russia's and Syria's air defense assets are limited and their locations are known to Israel, allowing evasion of their detection envelope.

 

So to sum up, it is definitely possible and likely that Israel will pursue maintaining the status quo with Syria and Russia especially for the sake of a strike in Iran.

[glenn239]

Yes, MZ, I think you are correct.  If Israel was to make an unprovoked attack on Russian forces in Syria, the response from the Russians would not likely be to "fold their tents" and withdraw from Syria.   I'd go even further in the same vein and say that if I punched a biker in the face in front of his entire club and then pissed on his Harley for an encore, the reaction might not be one where he buys me flowers.

In terms of what the actual threat from Russia, I doubt it's to do with ingress and egress of a strike package.  On that score I assume the Israelis will park their tankers over Jordan and send the strike through Iraq?   

Logistically, an Israeli attack on Iran is originating from bases under constant surveillance and returning to the same.  The key is the timing.  I think they are going to have to land dozens or even hundreds of aircraft on bases within range of Iranian drones and missiles.  The Iranians might try to catch them as they return, and to do that they'll need neutral surveillance assets to get the correct timing.

[TrustMe]

I'll put this here as it's applicable although it 6 months old...

ir Force stages major drill in Greece practicing potential long-range strike on Iran

https://www.timesofisrael.com/air-force-stages-major-drill-in-greece-practicing-potential-long-range-strike-on-iran/

[Perun]

 

[JDAM]

On 4/14/2024 at 7:04 AM, TrustMe said:

Stupid Royal Navy ex sea lord saying we should attack Iran while only having a quater of the alloted aircaft assigned to the two carriers

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-must-send-carrier-strike-group-middle-east-show-force-iran-3006137

The British have just one interest in Iran with any lasting power. Most of the propaganda from the UK flows from that very obsession, as what flows from the oil fields.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/iran-1953-mi6-plots-with-islamists-to-overthrow-democracy/

https://www.declassifieduk.org/exclusive-how-shell-and-bp-financed-britains-cold-war-propaganda-machine/

Edited April 18 by JDAM

[Mighty_Zuk]

Israel and US reportedly agree to an operation in Rafah in exchange for a more moderate response to Iran.

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-797675

[Rick]

2 hours ago, JDAM said:

The British have just one interest in Iran with any lasting power. Most of the propaganda from the UK flows from that very obsession, as what flows from the oil fields.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/iran-1953-mi6-plots-with-islamists-to-overthrow-democracy/

https://www.declassifieduk.org/exclusive-how-shell-and-bp-financed-britains-cold-war-propaganda-machine/

Is this book a good read?

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, JDAM said:

The British have just one interest in Iran with any lasting power. Most of the propaganda from the UK flows from that very obsession, as what flows from the oil fields.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/iran-1953-mi6-plots-with-islamists-to-overthrow-democracy/

https://www.declassifieduk.org/exclusive-how-shell-and-bp-financed-britains-cold-war-propaganda-machine/

 

It's more complicated than the above. Us Brits basically controlled the Middle East not just Iran, which we invaded in 1941, but also oil producing states like Barhain and Iraq (the Iraki Kirkuk fields were the largest ever discovered upto the 1920's). But this is all ancient history as have long since left the Middle East for being the wars/conflicted shit hole that it is.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

Is this book a good read?

 

It is I have this. I haven't read it in decades but if I remember right it gives some insight into top British military strategies and politics during WW2.

To give you an example was when Japan was advancing all over Asia and the Pacific the Australians and N. Zealanders fighting in N.Africa wanted to send their troops back home to fight the Japanese. Churchill refused and caused a massive rift between the various domains and with the UK.

I wouldn't say it a brilliant book, just average, but if you find it cheap then go for it.

Edited April 18 by TrustMe