pppNot really, no. I just don’t like the idea of paying for something thats overpriced and purchasing it in little numbers, plus on top of that, not being able to “actually own” it…Hardly a bad thing to look else where, is it.
Those could all be applied to Rafale too. Rafale will almost certainly work out more expensive, on a per combat sortie basis. By that I mean, when we factor in all costs, then divide by the number of combat sorties we make. With regard to ownership, I presume you are referring to the debate about whether the UK will be given the full source code, which has next to nothing to do with ownership and is entirely an industrial benefits issue. Do you think France will hand over the work for upgrade all Rafales to British industry? If not, then they are just trying to protect future work in much the same way as Lockheed is. If you are going to consider these factors, you must apply them equally to both sides.
Furthermore, remember that Rafale is a big upfront cost, we can’t split our buy into an early and later batch, or reconsider our order and increase it later, or leave buying attrition spares until a later date with the Rafale, we can with F35. This is probably the most important plus side for the F35, it gives us so much flexibility in our procurement.
pppthe ramps would still be used to launch UAV/UCAVs
or refurbished GR9s:D
Not going to get that much life from the GR9s.
Numbers wouldn’t be the only reason why I’d change. I’d rather go with something which we can have in common with France, i.e. Rafale, support, operating, maintenance, training for pilots, ground crew etc. Support structure? Well, since we’ll be sharing most of our tech and what not, I hardly think it’d be that much of an issue to worry about. Theres no harm in looking into the decision to purchase the Rafale, it’d be well worth the effort in having a chat with France and see what they have to say. Why not.
So your choice is based mainly on your political view of Britain moving away from the US and towards being part of a united European military? But I’m opposed to such an integration, so thats another point in favour of F35 😀
pppMBDA is producing among other things Aster, Mistral, Mica, Storm Shadow/Scalp, AASM, Milan, Spectra (with Thales), and Meteor. So far I thought that the Meteor for UK would be assemble in UK, Meteor for Germany in Germany, Meteor for France in France since MBDA is very well implented in France with many project exclusive to the French Armed Forces. Which is why I was confused by the article and I’m still wondering why even if MBDA UK is the prime contractor, it’s the British autorities that process the order from France. Now if you can explain to me how it works and if there are other instance of this happening for other european projects, I would appreciate.
Now about the integration of the missile, since the rafale is using the same software for its C, B and M variants, all you need is to integrate the weapon on 1 rafale for all rafales to be able to use it.
They each produce subsystems for the missile which are assembled at one location. There would be no benefit in mutliple final assembly lines for an air to air missile. Before you ask anymore questions, use Google a bit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/bvraam.htm
pppHere is the target that must be hit:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/images/dg-natanz-29aug02_1.jpg
No expert, but the nuclear facilities seem to be a tough nut to crack…
what about using airstrikes and commando raids (the thing the Israelis seem to be best at) in a coup de main to emasculate the regime – take out their most important naval assets, missile sites, air force and other prestige military assets to bring them to the de-nuking table.
Gun camera footage of splashed F-14s and SAM sites going up in puffs of smoke would make a statement, pre-empt any major retaliatory strikes and make follow-up strikes easier.
China and Russia would be unlikely to intervene (initially at least) and the other Gulf States would be gleefully rubbing their hands (secretly perhaps).
Why are they a tough nut to crack? The feasibility is already proven. Israel has bunker busters, which are sufficient to penetrate the defences.
Hi Imisbtn and Swerve,
I may have not emphasised the point I was trying to make, sure Israel could bomb Iran, and Iran could cause further trouble but the likely outcome is that Israel would fail to destroy all of Iran nuclear facilities and they would get new weapons from Russia and China as part of the political fall out.
Realistically Israel would be hard pushed to attack Iran without support from another Middle Eastern country and I appreciate this point was thrashed out and pretty much agreed on during the last debate on the subject, that the only viable party who could attack Iran is USA and it would be a political gamble, which would definitely back fire if Israel joined in the attacks.
Support which they have. None of the Arab countries want Iran to have a nuclear programme and will happily go along with Israeli border hopping en route to Iranian reactors.
Saudia and Jordan would be unlikely to raise much fuss. If Iran got S-300s and JF-17 because of it, Israel would be given more F-35s to compensate, maybe even F-22s. then Saudi and Japan would want them. That means China and Russia would have to beef up against Japanese F-22s, and Iran would have Saudis F-22 equipped. Israel could strike Iran very successfully, it doesnt even need to hit more than 50%, as the raid would achieve most of there aims just by happening
What makes you think China will sell? They are hardly pro-Iran.
pppThere is clearly a niche requirement for a ship-based VSTOL/STOVL fixed-wing combat aircraft. The F-35B is the only game in town at the moment, but it continues to be plagued with design, delay and cost issues. Is there any possibility that an alternative aircraft could be designed and produced to meet the basic requirement? For example, delete the stealth and supersonic requirements. Back to a Harrier III? Or a STOVL version of a basic aircraft like the A-4? New design or adaptation of existing aircraft? A post-Typhoon market opportunity for the European defence industry?
No. There isn’t any market. Between Spain and Italy you are looking at 50 aircraft absolute maximum. India is going with Mig-29k. France has Rafale. Argentina and Brazil are extremely tight fisted and like Spain and Italy would order small numbers, though the aircraft would be out of service by the time either of those two ever decided. Russians have options with Mig-29K, SU33 and maybe even PAKFA Naval. The USMC is looking for one, but if their funding for F35B goes, then they won’t be able to afford to design their own alternative, that would be even mre expensive than the F35B. Attack helicopters and UAV would still provide a good level of capability.
pppAnother factor to consider is upgraded S-200 SAMs. Here is a good assessment of this systems including Iran’s unusual deployment.
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/07/s-200-sam-system-site-analysis.html
I just can’t see those radars (even upgraded) being any use against the sort of EW systems Israel will bring to the party.
We, the people that will pay for even more costly oil, our(NATO) soldiers that are abroad and will face much better prepared opposition. It’s so easy to give theories and play scenarios behind the computer screen.
So what is your point exactly? Israel is unlikely to refrain from striking because people might get killed or suffer, because if Iran gets a nuke then from the Israeli perspective, the magnitude of suffering could be far greater for Israel.
Also, your statement is invalid, as you took my quote out of context. To bring it back into context again, my comments were with regard to who will suffer more if Iran starts arming up people to kill US troops and then the US govt responds by doing the same against enemies of the Iranian state, which was in response the claim that Iran would arm up these people in the event of an attack. Clearly, Iran has much more to lose from such an exchange, so its unlikely they would persue such a strategy. It is also very difficult to only arm up people against the US, as the attackers will use the weapons against European forces too, and that can only be bad for Iran and good for Israel. Is helping Israel get Europe further on its side a strategic objective for Iran? I don’t think so. There would also be no strategic benefit in attacking the US interests to make them restrain Israel, as the deterrence against Israeli strikes will already have failed and the Israeli plan succeeded once the facilties are hit. Iran could make itself look tough by striking back, but it would need to strike back at its attacker (Israel) not third parties. There are many ways Iran could hit back against Israel, but these need to be balanced against Israels counter reaction, chief of which would be that it could give Israel an excuse to come back and finish off a few other facilities.
pppI thought of a joke about it when I just read that…Forgot it now? Ah well probably wasn’t a good one anyway. 😀
Anywho. Last time I checked there was talks of the UK ordering around 40 units? If the price goes up, which it most probably will now, fewer will be ordered for the UK there for not having sufficient numbers to be effective, IMO, they’re not worth paying the price for such little units.
Like I said before, just put an order in for Rafale and have a commonality with the French since we’re going to work with them more often, probably even more with than the US. Keep it simple. More of a commonality, less of a pain in the ****.
Buying less numbers is in no way a reason to switch to Rafale. In fact, as is explained already, less numbers makes F35 more attractive, as we can benefit from US support structures, whereas with France we will have to pay a rather fair share of those structures.
pppI think if there is a stirke at Iran, the US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan can forget about looking out for ‘home made’ IEDs because they will have proper ATGMs heading their way.
Iran can casue a real problem in Afghanistan and Iraq. Forget about their differences with the Taleban, they got weapons delivered by Israel during the Iran-Iraq war.
And America can cause real problems in Iran, so that would be quite a silly game to play on Iran’s part. How would Iran’s leaders like all of its internal opposition to aquire plastic explosives? Hmm? And who do you suppose will suffer most from this game? The US with its extensive anti-IED forces, or Iran with virtually nil!
PPP- with precision guided munitions, I would have thought 10 per target, but possibly 25 in total, 10 for a lesser site and 15 for Natanz.
But 10 planes per target would mean perhaps 5 strikers and 5 flying fighter escort, which doesn’t leave much of a margin. The targets are are defended, and Iran does have fighters, so they do need to take account of what could potentially happen to the package. A 20 package on Natanz would mean they can complete eliminate the threat, and be absolutely sure they won’t have to come back. I don’t think the Israelis have any bunker busters that don’t have guidance systems!
pppSorry mate but you may not have realised, but there already is a state of war between Israel and Iran.
For a one time or two time kinetic strike, Iran would not be able to respond well. MiG 29s, F-14s, it wouldn’t matter- Israels history in air combat and cutting edge technology will take care of that.
personally I think Israel could use 20 F-15Is and tankers and hit two targets in and out very well. I wouldnt be surprised to hear they are or have practised for it
20 would probably only be enough for Natanz, though hitting Natanz will effectively kill the core of the programme. If 8 to 10 provide escort, that leaves 10 to 12 aircraft, roughly enough for taking out the main parts of the Natanz complex.
pppEven considering the “One strike Option” succesful,… what will follow on? No the day after, but a few months after. Shia militias stirring blood Iraq, a much more active Hezbo, more modern and lethal IED in Afganisthan and so on. That’s, I think, will be the “Persian answer”. That’s the best “Iranian air defense net”.
But Iran does these things anyway, so its not going to trouble the Israelis that much.
pppWhats wrong with the Israeli tankers? to strike Iran would include about 30 fighters and support tankers. SEAD along the way, sead on the way out. No need to ‘surrender’ in A-stan!
Irans responses are limited, any thing too over the top will induce operation Iranian freedom, launced from Iraq ans A-stan simultaniously, maybe a Amphib assualt to open a 3rd front. all very justified in response to any assymetrical warfare. would bring about 5 CVBGs into the picture, and a very interesting air war over the gulf, but leaning heavily in favour of the US and its allies.wanderlei- regarding 50 MiG-29s, why would they do more for the Iranians then they did for the Iraqis? As long as one of the Tomahawks first targets is C3 facilites, the MiGs wont get up to much.
If they want more aircraft than they can tank, then they will either need to fly to friendly territory, or find tanking from allies. If they are content to just hit the facility at Natanz, then they could do it just with their tankers. Hitting multiple targets would be out of the question as they would be spread too thin.
pppWell, yes and no.
Its a strike to one, but WAR to the other. So, both sides must look at this as war, or be in denial. Specially when they are within a reach of each other via SS missiles.I think Iran is actually preparing to make sure a Single air strike is not an option, in which case the attack is not worth it at all.
Its easy to say that, but the current state of defence shows that a singular strike is very much an option, due to the quantity of targets and their vulnerability. There is no requirement to destroy the programme completely, though that would be good, its just a bonus!
Its not a war unless Iran makes it into a war. The Mullahs don’t want a war, so the chances of them doing anything that will definately start a war is near zero. Iran could go all out against Israel, but would they want Israel going all out against them? No way! The “MAD” style thinking only really applies when each can do the same severity of damage as they receive, and thats not the situation with Iran and Israel. You think the Mullahs would want to risk losing their power? I certainly don’t.
Here is the globalsecurity take on the Iranian gear:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm
The issue isn’t so much what gear they have, but rather the difficulty in getting it airborne at any given moment. How many QRA fighters will Iran have covering any given section of the country. A very small number. In reality, a lot of those aircraft are probably used for spares anyway.
So what do you gents think it will take to pull off the operation?
Intel: Not 100% accurate but I do think you can identify key facilities crucial to the operation. Any destruction will delay the program by months or years plus the cost to the regime.
Political: Many nations will register their outrage whilst secretly expressing gratitude (see wikileaks)
Force Size: A strike package of F-15Is and F-16s in support loaded with dual warhead deep penetrating precision weapons. Package is supported by EW craft and SF units disabling specific facilities. Saudis report a violation of their airspace and conduct mock “scramble” in defense of its sovereign space? Or do they continue on to Bagram in Afghanistan and take the long way home?
Operation: Takes place at night where the decided advantage goes to the IASDF.
Intel: Easy one
Political: Even the Arabs would like the programme shut down.
Force Size: I doubt they will use special forces, it would be just too hard to coordinate and risk giving away the element of surprise, they can’t do much to the facilities themselves, and they’d almost certainly be caught by the Iranians. The Iranian air defence might be quite weak, but I’d bet the ground security is seriously tight. As you say, the biggest issue is logistical, they either need some tanker support from the US (anonymously), or to fly to A’stan and “surrender”. The allies (particularly the mainland Europeans) might not be all too happy about Israel bringing that fight into A’stan though as it puts their forces in serious harms way were Iran to counterattack. Its almost certain they will fly along the borders, with the Arabs saying they couldn’t do anything about it (mainly for domestic consumption, rather than to convince Iran).
pppFirst I doubt Israel alone have the capability to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Anyway the Persian air-defence net can’t stop them. So, the likely deterrence tool will likely be a Katyushas rain from Lebanon after the strike. I also think to try to build some anti-air net to face an American AND Israeli AND (likely) Saudi strike is pointless. The dis-proportion of forces is so huge that Iran will alway have to use “dirty” assymetric answers. Better to spend their scarce resources in Ash weapons, chemical armed sabotage teams in Iraq and so on.
The Persian Army is too weak for the task, but they may use dirty resources to flame all the Gulf Region. Just my view.
Depends what you mean by destroy really. Sure, there are smaller parts which are harder to hit, and computer based designs are near impossible to destroy if distributed. But, centrifuge facilities and nuclear reactors are really big, static targets. It will be interesting to see if Israel modifies some Jericho missiles with GPS guidance and conventional heads for a second wave once the strikers have made the first hit.
pppModerator:
Please delete this post if needed, but give this thread a chance.
I see no disrespect here yet, and related to title material.back to topic:
Considering 11 years ago air attack on Yugoslavia, which is like 20 times smaller and less defended than Iran, while being attacked by enormous fleet of over 200 aircraft per night. What size of fleet would be used in an attack by Israel alone as far as number of aircraft go, and would surface to surface missiles be considered?
thanks
The main difference is you are talking about a war, not a surgical strike. Israel will make one strike, with a very small chance of a second follow up strike. Sure, if the Israelis came over day after day then the Yugoslav example would be valid, and sure the Iranains could start hitting some of the regular strike back with fighters.
Off-course. Agreed oil price rises are a minor cost for Israel. But for the U.S.A bleeding economy it will be a nigthmare. Iranians want Israel partners to feel the pain. That’s a weird form of deterrence, but in the end it works as deterrence. We are not in the 80s anymore. Today $90/barrel.
It only deters a war though, not a singular strike. How does sinking the tankers stop the Israelis launching a strike? The Israelis know they can ignore Iran’s warnings and strike anyway, at which point sinking tankers just hurts Iran. The threat of oil price rises for the US or a bit of heat from the US is nothing compared to Iran getting a nuke from Israels perspective. When the facilities go, the game is over. Iran needs to form some proper anti-air defences if it wants to hold off an Iranian air strike, and they just don’t seem to be doing it.
pppThe Iranian “air-defense” will be asymmetric. I.e., someone start bombing Iran, Iran will start sinking oil-tankers. If they manage to hit several tankers in the gulf, oil will skyrocket to near $200/barrel, and the West will start to scream. Very simple.
There would be little point as it would be too late! Once Israel has hit the reactors, trying to make the West stop Israel’s attack will be pointless, as the Israelis will already have completed and stopped their attack. In any case, Iran has tried the old sinking tankers trick and look how bad that turned out for them! From Israels point of view, oil price rises are a minor cost to take out the key parts of the Iranian nuclear programme. The amazing thing is how little the Iranians are doing to prevent it! One could say they have a “hidden strategy”, but as Iraq proved its more likely that the leaders just aren’t that interested.
What makes you think that there is lack of spares for Mig-29s ? For a fleet of 80+ I would think Iran has plenty of spares in warehouse. Also, why wouldn’t Russia help them maintain these on regular basis, including some upgrades?
I still think even 50 battle ready Mig-29As can seriously hurt air attack plans.
cheers
Because there’s not really any money it relative to angering various other countries.
Sign In
