They don’t have to go through Syria. Why take the hard option? The path of least resistance into Iraq and onto Iran is via Jordan. Israel could easily take control of Jordanian airspace creating a route through for their tankers and strike force.

TJ

I’m not sure I would describe it as ‘easy’ to gain control of Jordanian airspace. Besides, the two countries have a peace treaty, which is likely to cause a few issues.

No, mate. That’s your head, not my foot. An effective strike (& what point is there to an ineffective one?), with the resources Israel has, in the current geopolitical situation, is impossible without nuclear weapons, i.e. impossible in practice. I have shown why, & invited you to provide contrary arguments. Your failure to provide any I will take as proof that you have none. :diablo:

Assertion is not argument. Saying ‘it is possible’ does not make it so. If you really believe that it is possible, & wish to be taken seriously, then I ask you (again!) to put forward some evidence, or arguments, for your proposition. Stamping your foot & saying ‘it is!’ will merely amuse or irritate your readers. It will not convince anyone.

Are you stupid or what? All you’ve shown is that you can bark louder, you haven’t shown diddly squat. Just your word against mine. I’ve even stated earlier that the most likely course the Israeli’s will take is to use their Dolphin subs. In terms of actually carrying out the strike, I don’t think it’s impossible for the IAF, but whether this will be ‘successful’ or not (see the above posts), is questionable. IMHO, if they do decide on an air strike, the most likely route will be through northern Syria and Iraq.

You offer no suggestions as to how these problems, none of which applied to the raids on Sudan & Syria, might be overcome.

I’ve seen people shoot themselves in foot before, but never quite in such a manner. Does that make you the Mad Hatter then? :rolleyes:

You need to go back and read my post;

‘No one is claiming an IAF strike against Iran would be easy, which I have repeatedly stated, but then it’s not impossible either, which is what you seem not to grasp.’

I know. I’ve also been there. :p But so what? It is ridiculous to compare that brief window of exposure, while flying along a maritime border, to the vastly greater overland distance, in hostile airspace, which would be required to attack Iran – and that was my point. The Sudan raid was on a coastal town. At no point would any Israeli aircraft have had to overfly hostile territory (intruding only briefly into unfriendly maritime airspace over an international waterway), & refuelling could have been done in international airspace over the Red Sea, close enough to home for the tankers to have had fighter escorts. I didn’t spell that out in so much detail in my first post because I mistakenly credited you with the wit to understand it without being led by the hand.

You cannot seriously argue that is comparable with the difficulty of bombing Iran, & if you do not, what’s your point?

BTW, it’s obvious that you’ve paid no attention to my posts. I’m probably the most pernickety person here when it comes to picking up on geographical errors.

You seem to think that a fighter, or even a large scale strike package with refuelers, suddenly becomes invisible if it enters an ‘international’ waterway. Wow, why bother with stealth technology when all one has to do is fly in ‘international waterways’ all the time and no one will detect you, amazing logic. I suggest you go have a look at a map, and see the route taken for the Sudan strike, do you really think Israel’s neighbours had little chance of picking up the strike?

Of course, the Sudan strike is simpler relative to any possible strike on Iran, that goes without saying. The point I was originally making, despite your rather self defeating ‘pernickety’ views on geographical limitations, is that if Israel is capable of launching strikes into Sudan and Syria, with what appears to be surprise and/or being undetected, then a possible strike on Iran is not beyond the realms of possibility for the IAF.

1. Israel does not have Tomahawks. It is believed to have Israeli-built cruise missiles, probably with a shorter range.

It’s commonly accepted the ‘Israeli-built’ cruise missiles you are referring to are reverse engineered or unlicensed/licensed versions of Tomahawks.

2. The raids in Syria & Sudan are not comparable with any possible attack on Iran. The flight to Syria was over the sea, then along the Syrian-Turkish border, at a time when Turkey & Israel were on much better terms than now. The Turks formally protested afterwards about violation of their airspace, but mildly, & are widely believed to have deliberately turned a blind eye to the very slight incursion. Sudan can be reached by flying over sea all the way, refuelling in international airspace. Both are much closer than Iran. Look at a map!

Seems like your views on geography are extremely simplistic and naive. The IAF had to fly over the Red Sea between Egypt (Sinai) and Saudi for the Sudan mission, which is only a thin strip of water (approx 10-15 miles at most), easily exposing them to either countries radars, not to mention Jordanian radars, before, entering the wider expanse of the Red Sea between the two countries. That involved significant risk. It’s still not known whether Saudi or Egyptian radars picked them up, but I’m guessing both those countries knew something was going on. I’ve visited the eastern coastline of the Sinai numerous time, you can clearly see the Saudi coastline it’s that close.

Watching the program right now, they are conducting war games against the armed forces of Ginger!

Anyone notice that aside from the Perry class the simulated enemy is basically India…Talwar class frigate and Jaguar armed with Sea Eagle.

This was a great programme. I noticed those ships on the screen in the briefing room before the exercise too. Am I correct in seeing a Type-21 Amazon/Tariq class frigate too? I think they could have been simulating some form of India/Pak scenario, especially with the Jaguar Sea Eagle combo.

Regarding the Daring class, it’s not as ‘stealthy’ looking as I thought it would be and, I know this may sound daft, but doesn’t that great big mast for the Sampson system generate a heck of a radar signature? Kinda moot point regarding stealth features then?

I’m actually quite surprised the Airbus family haven’t been widely used for military roles, particularly the small and medium size varients.

Having an Erieye system, maybe even an enlarged version, on an A319 or even the older A310 raises some interesting possibilities.