reply to post by Recollector
Secondly...have you ever heard of...(drum beats)...MULTIPLE strikes?
Yes. That would work. Assuming that the Iranians would just roll over and die..."because yes".
First, it's very difficult to attack the same exact spot twice. We are talking about a hole that at most, will have 5 meters across (example). That
means that the second bomb has to breach that 5 meter hole. Usually, bombs aren't that precise.
You can achieve that, having laser-designated targets, but that means having troops on the ground, which is very, very risky. Especially if you
consider they would have to actually be near a highly-defended facility.
Second, attacking the same place twice is one of the stupidest thing a military force can do. If you bomb a place once, it's attacked and you lost
your element of surprise. Go in for the second strike, and wait to see AA flying against your planes.
When your enemy knows where you are going to strike, its much more easier to defend. It's the same philosophy you get when defending/attacking a
valley. You are forced to go down that narrow path, which makes you an easier target.
Really, stop dreaming Iran nuclear sites are impenetrable.I think (not sure) that Israel might have 150 BBLU's.
Or they are about to get it.
150 divided to 3 underground facilities = 50 / target.
Yes, and how do they drop them?
The newer bunker-buster bombs are heavier, in order to have more piercing capability. You know what does that mean? That a plane that has X payload
capability can only take X weight in bombs. A heavier bomb means it's harder for the plane to take more of them.
In the best case scenario, you have one bomb per plane. But fine, send a lot of planes.
First, that's a very high risk because you are risking losing a lot of planes, and then not having much of them to defend in case Iran has some sort
of new effective AA missile (which, they have, although it's untested in combat).
Second, you have logistic. How do you make 50 planes fly through that distance without refueling them? Israel only has 5 of those refueling planes,
and the US is reluctant to aid them in their lone-wolf attack.
And let's not forget, that a swarm of 50 or more planes is very easy to pick up on target. That amount of planes can't navigate in groups in
low-level flying. Which means they either attack in waves (predictable), or they fly higher than the mountains and attack at the same time (bigger
And you are forgetting an important bit. It's not only 3 facilities. They are more than 10 (at the very least) important facilities, and spread
through the whole Iran territory.
People have to face it and admit it, Iran made a hell of a defense for them-selfs.
Its not about how thick is the concrete or how advanced and resistent is that concrete.Its about how many bunker-busters will need to get
thru.I think 3-4 will do the job.
Not going to go into how many planes will be needed or how will iranian AA's do to prevent the bombing.All i am saying is that 3-4 BBLU's dropped
one after the other will get thru.
...which brings my final argument that I already used with previous posters.
Making such a larger air campaign against Iran is a pure declaration of war. One thing is a hard punch to the nose that cripples Iran and stops at
that (fulfilling Israel/US objectives), but another completely different thing is to carry on a military operation for days.
That's not a preemptive attack. That's a war, and Iran has made it clear it will retaliate any way possible to them.
This whole situation isn't as simple as people think. And people are too hasty to underestimate Iran. Others overestimate it.