SchorschI for one thought a large group of Iranian people were quite frankly fed up with living in a country ran but a bunch of religious zealots and would like to move more into the
21st century. Hence is why I have said it makes no sense to invade or attack Iran unless its absolutely necessary….there is no sense in ticking off a bunch of people that quite frankly wana live the way you do.Ive read about the younger generation of Iran in many places and heard of it. My question is, if Ahmadinejad is only saber rattling to generate votes, who in the hell is voting for him? Doesn’t seem to me this younger generation would wana vote for this guy.
Hell, even Bush didn’t get elected (and yes, he was elected, enough of “boohoo” for Gore and his recount) by saber rattling or saying anything remotely close to these things back in 1999-2000.
Any attack by Israel would not have regime change in mind, it is pure destruction of a perceived threat. However, the Israelis must be aware, that any action might change the balance. If Iran is able to position itself even more than it does today, as the “true fighter” for Arab and Muslim, it can be a PR success for them (esp. when the attack fails to some extent).
In case the strike achieves its targets, the civilian body count will be moderate to non existent, and Iranians will ask why they pay so much money for a smoking scrapyard that doesn’t even address their needs. Iranians have access to global media and have lots of relatives in foreign countries. The current government did not succeed in increasing wealth of the poorer part of the population, they are under some considerable political pressure.
The positive thing about a strike entirely executed by Israel (with maybe some US support, but no active US action), it would be rather small and directed, just due to lack of resources. A USAF/USN strike would be an different matter entirely and cause great destruction in Iran with lots of military and civilian casualties (simply the American way). Such a campaign, although basically more effective to detain the nuclear arms program, would possibly even support the current Iranian government.
Sorry but the USSR wanted to play the Cold War …
Not entirely correct. USA and USSR both are to blame. Everybody had its share in the late 1940s break-up, while given the political and economical basis after WWII, a different development is hardly thinkable (the Soviets could not compete versus the US supported West on the economical or political side, without de facto occupation most east European nations would not have stayed the course much longer than 1960, if at all).
SchorschThere were plenty of things the west could have done to ease the transition from communism to democracy in Russia. The fact that the west just watched on and even actively supported the oligarchs as they haemorrhaged money from Russia… the irony is that most of the people in Russia couldn’t afford to buy British soccer teams, because after working most of their lives some ex communist with lots of money and connections bought up the factories they worked for and fired 90% of their workers, spent all the retirement funds the workers had been investing in and then sold it on to make a huge further profit for themselves… no wonder the Russian people weren’t impressed by capitalism. But being told they weren’t even very good capitalists because nasty Mr Putin wouldn’t let rich western companies come in and buy up everything worth buying made it extra special.
Strange that in the hated capitalistic Western countries the term “oligarch” is quite unknown, at least I have never heard of a German oligarch. The fact, that wealth was re-distributed very unequally and generally not according to needs is something the West cannot be blamed for. Even today it is within the possibility of the government to change this, but they rather limit themselves punish those who show political ambitions.
Hang on, they were commies too… or were there Russian overlords in each country in Eastern Europe? Why is it that you can trust some commies and not others? Or is it because they are Russians and it is Russians that are the bad guys.
I think in free elections no communist leadership would have survived the vote. See Hungary 1956 and Czech 1968. Both times big brother jumped in for help.
You miss the point completely as usual. If the west had treated Germany after WWI the way it treated them after WWII… ie got rid of the we won **** and treated them as something they hadn’t just accidently stood in, then there wouldn’t have been a WWII. In many ways WWII was created by the British and French treatment of Germany after WWI, which when we look at it now was rather unreasonable. Considering the cost to the Soviet Union of the second world war its continued occupation and division of Germany actually made a lot of sense.
So, basically Versaille was planned a Western European and American effort to castrate the prosperous Soviet Union?
Besides, although treatment by Versailles was not clever, it rather caused the empowerment of Hitler, but did not exactly cause the war.
That is what the people with the spy satellites think, but there is yet to be a spy satellite invented that can see through a sheet iron roof, let alone into the basement of a large building.
As the region is frequented quite well, and has pretty acceptable weather, you can actually build history of places. So you can see major activities and track back what happened where. Hiding that is possible, but no easy game. Hiding the building of a complicated technical complex under those circumstances seems doubtful.
They are not best buddies with the Russians. The Russians are simply building a reactor for them. They have no reason to believe that at some time in the future the Russians might for whatever reason stop supplying fuel rods. Having the ability to enrich their own uranium gives them independence… the whole point of building a reactor is to generate electricity for themselves that cannot be stopped by sanctions or any external entity. They have their own Uranium. They just want to learn how to enrich it themselves so they can have a guaranteed uninterrupted electricity supply.
Many nations enrich Uranium, but there are international organizations that look for the amount. If Iran fully complies with international (not American) supervision I don’t see any problems with civil use of nuclear power.
He claims… and is believed because Pakistan is an important player in Americas war of terror.
And as Pakistan has no interest in proliferation of weapons, not to its neighbor. The only active proliferator was North Korea due to shortness of cash, and they have nothing left to lose.
Rubbish. Nuclear bombs in the arsenal mean nothing. It is the test that everyone takes note of, and respects.
So the Israel arsenal is of no concern for anybody?
And who are you to suggest that 40MW is too large, or 70MW for that matter is too large for a scientific reactor? For all you know it might be powering the local facilities as well as being used for training and experimentation.
They are pursuing all aspects of a nuclear arms program and denying inspections. For the fully understandable quest for cheaper, more sustainable energy they walk in completely wrong direction.
By the way: even if you want to have your own enrichment, why start enrichment way ahead of actual usage of nuclear power? Why invest a sh!tload of money to produce something you don’t need immediately, but could be purchased in the beginning.
SchorschGood info….
Any idea where the Iranians are regarding this?
There was a secret South Korean program (busted recently) had reached 70 or 80% purity….
It is not that difficult to enrich Uranium. The difficulty depends a bit on the basis material, while basically all Uranium source deliver a 99.3/0.7 split of U238/U235.
The question is how much can be produced, and if the purity level gets in excess of 90%. Below 90%, the chance of producing a dude or a weak “dirty bomb” becomes larger.
The whole issue about Iran is their large scale enrichment and – at the same time – their quest for heavy water and heavy water reactor.
Basically, if you have a heavy water reactor, you don’t need enrichment (HWR can be fueled with natural Uranium). Enrichment is needed for light water reactors. Now, the Iranians not only have large enrichment facilities, but also they built a Heavy Water facility and next to it a 40MW heavy water reactor. 40MW is a pathetic power, but for a scientific reactor (as claimed by the Iranians) it way to much, either. Note that all reactors useful for significant Plutonium production have thermal power outputs in the scale of 40-80MW. Dimona started with 40 and was upgraded to 70MW.
The reactors at Bushker – initially built by Siemens and Westinghouse, now modernized by the Russians – are true electric power generators.
(for comparison: a modern pressurized light water reactor [most common type for electric power generation] like you’ll find 50km down river from my current position, has a thermal power of 3900MW and an electric power of 1480MW)
SchorschOne question here.. If Iranians were after nuclear weapons, would it be that hard to secretly obtain more enriched uranium from Russia? Can the same uranium required for nuclear powerplants be misused for nuikes or do you need material with different characteristics?
For a useful nuke you need U235 with a purity of ~90% and more. For a nuclear reactor ~10% is OK. You can buy enriched Uranium with ~25% U235, still this doesn’t help you any way.
Generally, enriching Uranium beyond a certain level is – from the nuclear energy point of view – pure waste of resource.
The light water reactors could theoretically be used for a nuclear programs to produce Plutonium. But the stuff coming out there is heavily contaminated with Pu240, while you need Pu239 for the big bang. That would require a very frequent change of fuel rods, something that would easily be detectable by several means.
Even if you scratch enough U235 for one single bomb, that does not have any true military advantage. A weapons program needs to deliver at least a dozen nukes in a short time.
Programs like those of Israel, USA, CCCP would have been easy aerial targets.
SchorschThey could claim the targets were military and punitive. The lack of accuracy of the missiles can be blamed for any collateral damage.
That wouldn’t make it better. Iran is best served if it cries after the attack and shows us burned little children.
An Israeli attack on Iran does not prove there is an Iranian nuclear arms program.
It does. Different than in Iraq Israel has no real advantage in taking out some sites in Iran. It doesn’t serve any other purpose, will yield no political advantage. It will rather come with a price.
China sells weapons to Iran. What sort of arms supplier would it be if it suddenly stopped selling weapons when the customer needed them the most?
Even without Chinese RPG warheads the Iranians can make those too.
I think even a shipload of rocket propelled granates will not increase the defensive capacity of Iran versus US or Israel air strikes. Therefore, China might continue to deliver weapons that are of no strategic value.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union was a result of Gorbys actions and was based on western promises that were not even kept. You might claim the result was worth it, but the Russians probably feel a bit let down… you know… those Russians that actually believed the west and thought they would be welcomed into the international community and Europe. The anti soviet organisations in the former eastern bloc got to enter NATO and the EU… Russia on the other hand is treated like it was the Soviet Union… in fact treated like it was the Soviet Union under Stalin.
What did you think “we” should have done? Pumping billions into Russia and drying tears by repeatedly saying Russia still is a super power. Everything that went wrong, went wrong because of miserable decisions in Sovietland before (and some after) 1991. Today “we” are financing your dream of the Red Army II again with our gas bill (and Iran’s nuclear program).
Russia is exactly as high in the agenda as it can be harmful to Western Europe. That is traditional thinking for several hundred years. The Eastern European nations are free to make their decision. They are, in majority, a powerful addition to core Europe, as they were a powerful attrition to the Soviet Union. The majority of these nations actually didn’t see any big money after 1990/1 by the West. They did in on their own.
People talk about the second cold war… well the west has already lost it…
Still they drink Coca Cola, frequent English internet forums and buy Mercedes Benz if they can afford it. I think for a loser “we” can make a good living. the “Russian way-of-life” hasn’t become any more popular here, neither did the “Chinese way-of-life”.
In other words those that are not known will be safe… what if everything is duplicated 5 times, two beneath granite mountains, two under hospitals, and one under a schools?
Of course, what else do you imagine? Israel or the USA does not intent to bomb Iran into stone age but to delay the nuclear arms program by several years through destruction of key installations.
Iran is not North Korea, they neither have the cave mentality, nor do they have such a stone age regime. Iran is rather progressive, and as such the level of secrecy you estimate hardly possible. they can hide stuff, for sure, but hiding industrial sites with hundreds of workers is way above possibility. Besides, it would be quite costly.
Even just assuming the Iranians have a military program who is to say they are not telling the truth? Why would it be so hard to have the military facility somewhere else? Hiding in plain sight didn’t really work in Iraq and the Iranians know that. You think they might not take steps to conceal a real military nuclear weapon program?
Big industrial sites can hardly be hidden, not in times of spy satellites. They can do some enrichment and reprocessing on lab level. A hidden facility would additionally prove its military purpose, while most facilities the Iranians built are in fact dual use. Only, it does not make any sense to built a heavy water reactor except if you want to produce Plutonium. Note that nobody ever mentions the light water reactors in Bushker, as nobody considers them in any way helpful for a nuclear arms program.
If Iran would run a modest enrichment program in a normal factory hall, cancel the heavy water reactor, the international accusations would cease.
Interesting assertion. Can you then explain why the Pakistani scientist that developed the Pakistani nuclear weapons was charged with passing nuclear secrets to Iran?
The infamous Mr Kahn did not act on behalf of his government.
The Dutch/German scientists that helped Mr Kahn back then, are no prove that Germany desperately wanted Pakistan to become nuclear power, either.
Schorsch😮
The only target that makes sense to be struck nuclear is the Uranium enrichment facility. The problem: just dropping a bomb on top of it doesn’t bring you a step ahead. You must have an earth penetrating nuclear weapon, possibly two of them. Deliver such with a missile seems questionable, at least considering Israel’s missile arsenal.
Iran is still a long distance from useful nuclear bombs. It can in a limited time however produce a Uranium-based bomb and possibly reduce the size in a way that it fits under an aircraft (like South Africa).
SchorschGarry’s replies always remind me of “intended misunderstanding”.
To a degree, but there is no point in developing such long range missiles if they are only for propaganda. A few directed at major cities with the aim of actually killing some people in addition to a few directed at Israels nuclear facilities around Israel would probably be enough to “vent their rage” at being attacked and having the international community pretty much do nothing about it… which is what the international community is best at.
If Iran is attacked, it would be a pure choice to retaliate, especially versus civlian targets. That would then justify the Israeli raid. Imagine: Israel strucks Iran’s nuclear program, next day Iran launches missiles and kill 100 Israelis. Do you think the Security Council with Iran’s “best friends” China and Russia will condemn the Israeli action?
So. The Chinese know Iran has no reason to attack them. China doesn’t threaten Iran. China doesn’t tell Iran it has a poor human rights record. China doesn’t tell Iran it can’t have nuclear power stations.
Somehow you still seem to think that all the ooponents of the devilish United States of America will unify and fight for … less human Rights propaganda (oh, the hatred Human Rights, devilish thing of the West!).
China has interests in safety on its border. It generally has no interest in a nuclear armed Iran, like it doesn’t have interest in nuclear armed North Korea. It apparently does not take active steps, but it surely wouldn’t increase arms supply when Iran is in a de facto war situation with Israel & USA.
What lost war? If you mean the cold war… it feels like it never ended.
For you it obviously didn’t.
I guess you dig the trench deeper every day.
And those fixed installations are known?
Those that are not known will hardly be found by flying circles over Iran. In Kosovo they tried to take out a field army.
The US and Israel cannot even prove a military nuclear program in Iran exists, let alone where it exists on a map.
Most of the nuclear facilities are not secret. The only secret is what they are actually used for, and it is unknown if Iran is building a re-processing plant. Targets are:
– Heavy water facility
– Heavy water reactor
– Uranium enrichment facility
The rest can remain untouched. Israel needs to limit its strike on these assets.
If you have the firepower however (that means: if you are USAF/USN), you can make it simple and just level everything in the area.
The likely only information they have will be based on defectors.
Iran admits to have all the facilities I listed, it just sais they are purely for civil use, which becomes doubtful when one looks at the size of the facilities or the general sense of a heavy water reactor.
If they do have a weapons program it will be deep under ground… probably in a hospital where the x ray machines will hide any radiation emissions.
Your nuclear understanding is limited. Neither a heavy water reactor nor a re-processing plant fit in a hospital.
Israel got nuclear weapons to protect itself from WMD possessed by its neighbours. Irans best chance of getting nuclear weapons would be if Pakistan gave them some of theirs. Most likely scenario for Pakistan to give Iran some nuclear weapons would be an Israeli attack.
Israel sought nuclear weapons to equalize the conventional superiority of its neighbors, bound with the lack of strategic depth. Today it could go without it, at least when it comes to it direct neighbors.
Pakistan has no interest in a nuclear Iran, neither. Nobody has interest in a nuclear Iran, except for Iran and some trans-national fundamentalists.
Perhaps what they should do is play the western game…
You mean criticizing Israel for Human Rights violation and hope that it works out on the long run?
SchorschConsidering the public motivation for this potential attack from Israel even if it was completely ineffective it would bring to worlds attention the fact that the Israelis also had a nuclear program… both civilian and military that the international community has largely ignored.
Like the SCUDs in 1991, a pure propaganda message.
I am sure the Chinese would have happy to have a huge order from Iran for more modern RPG warheads and Iranian production of MANPADS and ATGMs can certainly be increased. Besides if anything will make them want nuclear weapons it will be Israel or the US actively trying to stop them from getting them.
China is living of seeling DVD-players and cheap stuff to Europa and USA. That is its main business. RPGs for Iran don’t fuel the economy.
By the way, an Iranian missile that reaches Israel, also reaches China.
Are they really? It seems to me that Europe and the USA are never satisfied with Russia. They constantly complain of human rights abuses there and lack of democracy etc etc. I think Russia is rapidly coming to the conclusion that it will never be good enough for the EU and the US and that instead of being a friend, that the relationship will never be more than economic. I am sure they are sick of the west claiming moral superiority when in the former baltic states ethic Russians are denied basic human rights. It seems the only way to avoid criticism of human rights abuses is to join the EU.
I think you still read news the Sovjet way. When do the Russians stop whining about “the lost war”?
The air war in Kosovo will last 3-4 days… a week tops.
In Kosovo a government was required to change its mind. And an area needed to be freed. Losses on the opponent’s side needed to be limited, first of all to keep support by Western Europe population.
In Iran fixed installation need to be taken apart. Different game.
If USAF/USN goes in, then with maximum firepower over smallest time. That calls for B-2/B-1/B-52, F-15E, F-16C, F-18C/D/E/F, some F-22 and a shipload of cruise missiles. The Iranians would have so many aircraft on their radar that they cannot see the dark sky any more, then a cruise missiles takes away the radar.
SchorschYou say that the speed of sound is dependant upon ambient temperature but the change isn’t linear. Does this mean that the speed of sound changes by the square root of the temperature differential?
When you take away the constants, speed of sound is function of square root of temperature in Kelvin (=temperature in Celsius plus 273).
Temperature drops linearly with 6.5° per 1000m.
When you assume 340 m/s at 0m, you can basically calculate it easily, for let’s say 4000m:
T(0m) = 15° = 288K
T(4000m) = 15 – 4*6.5 = -11°C = 262K
sq(262)/sq(288) = .954
SoS = 340 * .954 = 324 m/s.
Doesn’t win you a price in physics, but makes you the king of Modern Military Aviation fora!
When air is assumed as ideal gas, then only the temperature has an affect on local SoS. Water vapor and other stuff has effects, but generally neglectable as long as you don’t want to win the Nobel prize.
SchorschA fairly often quoted mission is the “hi-lo-lo-hi” profile. That puts the emphasis on a low level dash into target after the high cruise in.
A normal hi-lo-hi more or less assumes a descent into target (while descent is often not regarded in mission fuel considerations), a combat fuel allowance at target altitude (the “lo”-part) and then climb and cruise back.
A hi-lo-lo-hi will see the aircraft descent, fly a certain distance (30, 50, 100 nm) into target area, waste some fuel and especially bombs there and then egress at low altitude for a bit smaller distance. This profile is the typical for long/medium range attackers like Tornado, F-111, Su-24.
On many occasions the air defences at medium altitude were actually worse than on lower altitude (for example Kosovo 1999), due to good ECM and SEAD tactics. Then aircraft fly hi-med-hi, means, they don’t descent to the deck at target. For smartbombs an attack on the deck is not necessary any more, a GPS bomb is best released at 30000ft.
SchorschProbably the only U.S. administration that would go for the option of a U.S. strike is the present one. I can’t see any future U.S. administration opting for a strike and possibly the Israeli’s see likewise. Again we are talking about an Israeli option here, not about a U.S one.
Generally correct, but the Israeli government cannot afford to lose the backing of any US administration. The future administration – let’s assume it is led by Barack Obama – will not significantly change the USA’s position towards Iran. As any strike without at least passive (= basically looking the other direction) support by the USA is close to unfeasible, I don’t see a “lone decision”.
Current actions indicate that Israel is trying on the charm offensive. The Iran is not every Arabsmen darling, but merely an ally when there are few/zero options.
SchorschWell simply put the speed of sound is a variable dependant on a number of things, amongst others medium through which it travels, and ambient temperature. As we all know (South pole excepted) with altitude rise comes a drop in density and temperature so affecting Mach which of course is defined as ‘the local speed of sound’.
But then, you know that already so perhaps you’d be so good as to explain it to others who are less up to speed. I know you could explain it far better and in greater detail than I can.
Thanks.
Excuse my little irony when I read star49’s post.
Speed of sound is basically a function of ambient temperature (not linear, though). As we use to assume International Standard Atmosphere, the local speed of sound drops with altitude. At sea level 340 m/s a Mach 1, at 10000m it is about 300-305 m/s. Above that it drops to 295 at ~12000m and stays constant then (as does the temperature), always assumed a standard atmosphere.
On a cold day in Siberia, the speed of sound can drop below to 340 m/s, as ISA standard sea level temp is 15°C. As cold temperature also helps the engine to pull out more thrust, the effect is partly very noticeable, so that an aircraft will not achieve its design Mach number on a hot day.
SchorschWhy there is no fuel tank in Su-24’s wing? forgot?
Yes, just forgotten. Someone put the specs in the trash before design was finished. Was a long night again in the design office.
Anyways, a fuel tank in a swept wing comes with price in weight and complexity. It also has a structural knock-on effect, for example on the already highly loaded pivots. So, if your specs don’t ask for more range, you cancel that.
Schorsch1400 km/h at 200 m is Mach 1,14. Just for the benefit of the others.
Oh, the speed of sound is a function of altitude? That might surprise some members here.
SchorschPuh, so much crap in one post.
saving money on supercruise is much better than non-supercruise design. better be twin engin to achieve that. Single engine does not make sense.
Installed thrust matters. A380 has four engines, it still doesn’t supercruise (why tried it).
Better buit B-3 since 2001 than waiting for future unknown cost. F-16 can pretty much do the job of F-35 with CFT and 600 gallon tank just like F-18E.
Interesting.
Both Su-35/F-35 do the same job. One is using stealth while the other using Speed, longer range weopons and external ECM pods in addition to internal. Only time will tell which one is more effective.
Time has already told: The F-35!
The Su-35 has no noticeable speed advantage, it still is subsonic most of the time subsonic. No advantage in range.
Su-35 will need only 3 to 4gs to pull the same manevorability as 9G F-15E.
Maybe someone lately looked up basic equations of motion. I do that regularly.
Su-34 is alot bigger than Su-30MK/F-15E. Just the rear tail sting will add 1 tonne over flanker and much bigger/fater nose for side by side seating with big hump in the back. add to that 1.4 tons of titanium protection. They said it can achieve supersonic cruise at Tree height with crusie missile signature. which is much lower than any other fighter. they are pretty much hiding all specification of Su-34 unlike Su-35.
An aircraft supercruising at tree top level? That would be a truly re-define the physics of flight. “They” must have some mental issues.
Even Su-35 can achieve Mach 1.35 at 200M. once it goes down to 50 to 100m speed will drop. much comparable to F-15K.
Would be a pleasure for the pilot, and the next gust might easily take the aircraft apart. The fuel flow of several hundred kg a minute might eat a bit into the range.
Sign In
