SchorschIts hard to say anything about Iran’s nuclear programme. We don’t know much about its current state, and Im not sure if we have enough resources in that country to provide all the details. So it may not be as advanced as they want us to believe or on the contrary it may be more advanced.
But for the sake of argument, lets assume it is moderately advanced. If so I don’t think Israel alone has the means to destroy it. People in this field learn from others’ experiences, and Iranians must have spread their facilities thinly all around to regain the capability if something of the sort happen. By aerial strike/s alone, their programme can be slowed by a few months/years perhpas but it is unlikely to be eliminated.
Its the aftermath, however, which is perhaps more interesting. I am not sure if Iranians have the operational means (as of yet) to hit all of Israel. But if they, I think they would undoubtedly send some towards targets in Israel which would include Israeli nuclear facilities in retaliation. Yes, Israel has some ABM capability, but what if some of these actually hit their targets?
Nuclear facilities are large and not easy to hide and bury. They did it with the enrichment facility. Remember that they have to keep the civil character of the program.
The retaliation options are limited, Irans missiles do not have the punch to do Israels nuclear facilities any real harm, it would be a lucky shot after all. And as Israel has nuclear weapons, it is in no dire need for the Dimona plant.
A restart of the program after a sufficiently heavy hit is unlikely, especially given the economical state of Iran.
SchorschThe only way the Israelis could get away with it is to turn the whole of Iran into a parking lot with Jericho missiles, and I don’t think anyone wants that.
It is unlikely that either nation can use its medium range missiles to any advantage if nuclear weapons are not used. The Iranian ballistic missiles are rather primitive and no real threat, the Israeli built for nuclear deterrence.
To take out the hardened enrichment facilities the Israelis need aircraft and special weapons. It is the most difficult target. The heavy water reactor and the reprocessing plant are easier to hit, but probably better defended.
SchorschI think they are beyond doubt capable of pulling off an operation like that although I’d expect operators of Iranian defense system to be much more competent than their Syrian counterparts.
They maybe are … or not. It doesn’t really matter.
When Israel strikes the air defense will not really have the ability to prevent it. Iran does not have the assets to deal with a large number of targets in a very short time, coupled with effective jamming and confusing actions. Probably they down one or two aircraft, force some into a mission kill, but all that is factored in.
The Iranians will have 30 minutes to understand the Israeli tactics and prepare a defense. Then its over and all aircraft are gone.
SchorschI think much said in the press is rethoric and posturing.. same as we saw just before N.K went nuclear, where Kim Jong was threatened with all sort of military actions should N.K become nuclear.. and then once he did, rest of the world did pretty much nothing. Hence i do not think much will occur of threats against Iran.. and if they choose to go nuclear.. they will. But everything aside i want to discuss technical aspect of such action and lets leave politics and justifications for such action on the sideline..
In essence could Israel pull off repeat in Syria with Iran.. would it be a small scale strike, say pair of F15s on long strike mission, or would they opt for larger scale incursion and perhaps use airborne units together with large scale air strikes. The first would require a precision strike and element of suprise , with no action take against Irans airforce or SAM networks… the former would require for Israel to overwhelm Iranian AF, much as they did with Egypt decades ago.. as well as take significant action in eliminating at least part of air defense network.
Im just curious do people here belive Israel could pull of such operation with no military assistance abroad (excluding intelligence sharing )
In order to effectively take out the nuclear installations a large strike group is needed with 40+ strike aircraft. The objective has to be achieved in a single attempt.
The Iranian defense is not the key limiting factor, rather the range and the tactical surprise (low level attack). Therefore an Israeli strike is only thinkable when either Turkey or USA (via Iraq) actively supports Israel with overflight rights and/or landing rights.
Therefore my conclusion is that a lone Israeli strike is beyond the militarily feasible, especially when the objective demands to be achieved 100% in the first attempt, requiring a lot of overkill in the planning (remember Osirak: Israel sent in 3 times the destructive power necessary).
SchorschYou don’t have to drive a tank. Diversionary amphib and air assaults were part of the Soviet plan. Thinking Denmark.
While an amphibious landing in the Baltic sea in the operational range of unfriendly air assets and on the edge or outside friendly aircraft and radars is definitely a quick way to dispose troops. The easiest way to neutralize a landing force is to cut its supply line.
SchorschThe northern European countries outside of Russia (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Sweden) seem to largely have no dedicated helicopter for anti tank warfare. Mostly the countries rely on some mix of light and medium helicopters if they want to use helicopters for taking on the big iron. The military doctrines in these regions really seem to favor the old one man (sacrificed) for one tank strategy.
Why the lack of a dedicated anti-armor helicopter to do the job?
Denmark: When do the Russian tanks arrive in Denmark?
And when they arrive there, they made their way through Germany, which would possibly question the general sense of continued defense.
Iceland: I would suppose a large T-72 attack is an unlikely scenario.
Estonia: They have a population comparable to that of my hometown Hamburg, but less economic power. How shall they afford dedicated helicopters when the army has problems to afford helicopters at all?
Norway, Sweden: These countries have two things in common: they have a short borderline to Russia and their economic centers are hundreds of miles of the border (different than my hometown Hamburg, which was “two tank hours” from the border). The roads are limited, any attempt of an army to travel the whole way to Oslo or Stockholm with a tank will ultimately fail, without the need for AT helicopters.
For those armies the resource is space and the limited ability of the enemy to position his forces, as he is bound to the few roads. It is easier to take out the stretched supply lines than the tanks itself. A large force of tanks several hundred kilometers off the next supply base, only connected via few (easy to interdict) roads, quickly become a liability rather than an asset on the battlefield.
SchorschInlet ramps/cones don’t give much benefit until above Mach 2. Going supersonic is counterproductive for a stealth aircraft; because the sonic boom can give away its location acoustically and on radar and IR. The shock wave on the SR-71 was so powerful that it could be seen on radar hundreds of miles away with conventional radar of the era. I would think that most of the time that the F-22 and JSF are being used that they would be subsonic; unless it’s scrambling to an impending urgent threat or trying to search an unreasonably large area.
Like Chuck Yeager said “inlet ramps are not worth their cost and weight in most cases” I think he was talking about inlet ramps on the F-4 Phantom II. He said something to the effect, that was his opinion that the cost, complexity and weight added to the aircraft was hardly worth the slight gain of speed. I think he said this about the time of the Vietnam war, at that time there was about a 20% loss of thrust using fixed inlets at Mach 2.
Depends on the engine.
Generally Chuck Yeager is right, when speeds above M1.8 are not the target.
Well, maybe because there is no need to? Maybe because they thought about it from day 1 when designing the airframe? Do you thinks the Russkies don’t understand the basics of aerodynamics anymore?
No one knows what were the specs at that time. But for prolonged cruise at M1+ to M1.5 the idea to carry missiles suspended on pylons is crappy. You should understand that for any aircraft the design goal was M1.5+, and nobody asked for performance at M1.3 as long as the aircraft came through it. For supercruise performance you have to think exactly about that and you’ll come to semi-recessed missiles.
SchorschDrag from missiles is over-estimated, Eurofighter do M1.5 clean and M1.3 under operational conditions with 6-8 missiles.
MiG-25 do M3.2 but is restricted to a mere M2.8 on operations.
Why ? is it because it cant go past M2.8 with missile loadout ? – No, its because the engine get too hot and wastly reduce lifetime.
No it is not.
It can be very significant and largely depends how missiles are arranged. The Eurofighter solution is well thought, most Eurofighter performance figures are based on 4 MR-AAM and 2 SR-AAM.
The Suchoi carries the missiles in a rather drag prone configuration. I wonder why nobody though of remedying this issue with semi-recessed missiles.
On the topic: I think the Suchoi 35 will have a number of superior flight performance figures. But I further think that those will not translate into a better exchange ratio under real life conditions. In a frontal engagement, most (=50% and more) Suchoi 35 will be down before they get in visual range.
SchorschHere also
http://www.aftenposten.no/Cheaper? Weeeell, I don’t think so. Anyways, a strategic decision for serious anti-ship and offensive capability, versus a more defensive Gripen NG. Might not solve the fighter problem, though.
In general: I agree.
I guess that Norway has to look at the fact that it can only support a small number of fighters, and the F-35 is arguably the best to keep the coast free of ships, do precision strikes in an unfriendly environment and have a long reach.
In case of real conflict Norwegian bases are stuffed with NATO aircraft, and German and British Eurofighters can well complement the F-35 and engage the Suchoi in a knife fight in the telephone box.
SchorschAn F-16 can’t go beyond M1.6.
Under operational conditions, few of today’s fighters will get much further than Mach 1.8. Even the Suchoi 27 or 35 will have problems with it, especially considering their draggy missile arrangement.
SchorschThe Lightning F53 had underwing pylons as well.
Fuzzy British thing, the Lightning … 😀
SchorschKen, do not think putting engines on the top of the wing is that bad idea. As always it seems only Russians figured it out. 😀
While the reason is completely different from the EFW-614 and HondeJet. The An-74 uses the Coanda effect for STOL purposes. Find similar thing at the YC-15.
The Beriev uses overwing engines as it is designed as amphibious aircraft and needs to put the engines way above the water line.
The EFW-614 uses overwing engines to reduce ground clearance and partly to shield noise.
SchorschIt may be a somewhat strange question
But why is it that it’s only seems to have been the British who have pursued the over-wing weapons mounting arrangement on its combat aircraft – like that of the English Electric Lightning and SEPCAT Jaguar?
Are there any other designs that have incorporated this arrangement?Regards
Pioneer
It is because the British are strange.
Secondly, but much less important consideration, both aircraft suffer from lack of underwing space. The Lightning uses the majority of its wing for undercarriage, the Jaguar already has two pylons.
Advantage of overwing pylons is that they work as wing fence. Disadavnatge is tedious weapons installation, more weight for similar payload and a drop in local lift.
But as I said, predominantly the British use this configuration because they want to demonstrate their fuzzy thinking.
SchorschIt certainly has FADEC according to the manufacturer…
In the 1998 analysis of the An-70 it was considered as one of the weak spots. Maybe they changed it in the meantime. I am always a bit cautious when it comes it comes to FIS’ non-operational systems and manufacturer claims.
Schorsch1) The manoeuvering capabilities and turn rate of the Lightning is much less than official statements suggest
Dude, the F-35 prototype just made its first supersonic flights. They don’t even know what the turn rates of the F-35 are, especially when all modifications of the flight control system and structures are in.
So, the official statements is the best you can get, the rest is dumb-talk by people who read the first two pages of “Flight Performance for Dummies and Defense Analysts” and now can divide two numbers from Wikipedia by each other, put them into an Excel sheet and present the screenshot as “analysis”.
Sign In
