Article

2006-09-06 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2006-09-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Having viewed the recording, I too was struck by how the mission evaporated. My only thought in watching it was that this couldn't have been the regulars, it surely was a poorly trained reserve unit.

Let's hope the recording was not viewed by any intelligent enemy.

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-06 02:39|| 2006-09-06 02:39|| Front Page Top

#2 it surely was a poorly trained reserve unit.

All the israeli Army system is based on reserves (in order to compensate for the lack of manpower) so their reserves are supposed to get frequent recalls for retraining and be as good as the regular army, perhaps even better due to their greater experience and maturity (a bit like the pilots of the National Gurd who lick the guys of the USAF despite flying inferior planes and whose ground personel is able to refuel and repair the planes faster than the USAF peronel).

Something is rotten in the IDF ground army if they have let their reserves fall this low.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-09-06 04:30|| 2006-09-06 04:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Laurent Arthur Du Plessis, journalist, writer and contributor to the "4 vérités" mag had said in several conservative radio talk shows that the USA would probably have to carry out the needed strikes against iran by themselves (which for him will trigger the "hot" WWIII he sees as inevitable due to muslim imperialism), since his assessment of the IDF was that it had been somewhat turned into a (really effective) "police force" by the two successive intifada, and that its purely "military" aspect (western style) had been degraded by this emphasis on internal counter-insurgency.

IE, the IDF has spent two decades fighting the paleos, and has lost some of its edge regarding "full scale" military ops in the process.

Don't know if that holds water, I'll let more savvy types comment.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-09-06 05:53|| 2006-09-06 05:53|| Front Page Top

#4 I think Du Plessi is off the mark. The problem is teh IDF ground army who in later years has been starved of money for training as the Air Force got over half the military budget. The Air Force has got plenty of training. In fact its pilots beat the American ones in maneuveers. Unfortunately with current resstrictive rules of engagement the IAF cannot be effective against terrorists who hide between civilians (BTW, this is a war crime)

Anyway this is a moot point because strikes against Iran would not be carried neither by the ground army nor by the IAF (Baghdad is the limit it can reach unless America refuels its planes or allow them landing in Irak) but by missile-launching subs operating in the Persian Gulf.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-09-06 06:18|| 2006-09-06 06:18|| Front Page Top

#5 JFM - Your comment regards the range of Israeli F-15s is incorrect according to a GlobalSecurity page I've seen posted here. I don't have the link handy, sorry. They would be required overfly some hostile territory, of course, but it indicated clearly they could make the round trip without refueling. Loiter time would be minimal, of course. Just FYI.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-06 06:40|| 2006-09-06 06:40|| Front Page Top

#6 I was basing on the range of the F16s who bombed Osirak. Despite being stripped of every "unneeded" weight (like ECM) they were so heavy (weeeeeell beyond the authorized limit) they could barely take off and on return they were on their last gallons when they landed.

I don't know if F15s could reach Teheran but there are a lot of places in Iran who are out of range for F15s, at least if the F15s have to fly at very low altitude like they did in the strike against Osirak. Now if Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Irak look the other way the F15s would be able to fly high and that increases range. I still doubt that even in optimal conditions they would be able to reach Eastern Iran and that is teh place where, if the mullahs are not complete idiots where the nuke facilities should be located.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-09-06 08:16|| 2006-09-06 08:16|| Front Page Top

#7 I've located the GS article on the F-16 Sufa - a Block 60 with a 2100 km range (Note that's a PDF). That suffices under expected conditions.

The F-15I Ra'am model is the one I referenced, though I have to admit I'm having real trouble re-locating the link, damnit. My apologies. The F-16 link indicates the range is on par with the F-16, but it's not listed in that PDF, which is considered a definitive source for the data it contains, or so I'm told.

If 2100 km, subtracting payload and routes and altitude and maneuvers will do the trick, then they have the capability. This is not 1981 and Israel has not been sitting on its hands for these 25 years... In this Dec, 2005 article (? 12.11.05) Sharon ordered the IAF to plan the mission. Must've had a reasonable presumption it could be done. Additionally, I doubt you'd have trouble finding Israeli pilots who would execute it as a one-way trip, if needed - bailing out somewhere that they could be picked up - say with one of those subs we've heard about.

Just FYI. I happen to believe they'll get to watch Iran's takedown, not execute it, but that's just me.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-06 08:59|| 2006-09-06 08:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Link to Sharon ordering up the plan - sorry for omitting it.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-06 09:01|| 2006-09-06 09:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Okay, found the GS F-15 Ra'am link Key bit:

"In August 2003 the Israeli Air Force demonstrated the strategic capability to strike far-off targets such as Iran [which is 1,300 kilometers away], by flying three F-15 jets to Poland 1,600 nautical miles away."

That indicates a one-way trip - for both craft?

Posted by flyover 2006-09-06 09:10|| 2006-09-06 09:10|| Front Page Top

#10 F-15s have a 3500 mile (5600 km) ferry range with conformal tanks and 3 external tanks. Reaching Tehran (1600 km) with 2 LGBs isn't the problem. Getting through Syrian/Jordanian/Iraqi/Saudi/Turkish/Iranian airspace and back is.

Posted by ed 2006-09-06 09:22|| 2006-09-06 09:22|| Front Page Top

#11 On the GS F-15I Specs page, which in my hurry to provide a link I didn't check before posting #9, it indicates a range of 4450 km... Sheesh - so they meant round-trip, but neglected to say so - or one of the pages is in error.

ed - Your posted info would give them quite a bit of wiggle room for the limiting factors. 3500 US Nautical Miles = 6482 km. Looking at the GS Map...

Posted by flyover 2006-09-06 09:39|| 2006-09-06 09:39|| Front Page Top

#12 Oops, you meant US survey miles -- 5632 km. Sorry for confusing units.

Posted by flyover 2006-09-06 09:40|| 2006-09-06 09:40|| Front Page Top

#13 A millitary expert who gets his info by watching TV.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-09-06 11:40|| 2006-09-06 11:40|| Front Page Top

#14 My Old Man flew F-4s off the Coral Sea during Vietnam.

He said his squadron once had a visit from an IAF officer, who showed off some of their gun footage from the recent (Yom?) war with the Arabs.

In some of the footage, the Israeli pilot streaked past an Egyptian plane taking off from the runway, circled back, and shot him down once he was airborne.

You see, if wouldn't have counted as a kill if he were still on the runway ...

They were badasses then. But 50% of the budget?? -- "An Air Force can neither take nor hold ground .."

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2006-09-06 17:38|| 2006-09-06 17:38|| Front Page Top

23:57 Cheaderhead
23:56 Zenster
23:54 anymouse
23:54 Zenster
23:51 Zenster
23:46 Zenster
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:34 FOTSGreg
23:33 djohn66
23:32 trailing wife
23:25 FOTSGreg
23:22 Zenster
23:16 Zenster
23:16 DMFD
23:14 Zenster
23:12 BH
23:10 Swamp Blondie
23:09 twobyfour
23:06 Elmert Crosh5077
23:05 trailing wife
23:04 twobyfour
23:03 Barbara Skolaut
23:00 Mike
22:57 Barbara Skolaut