US defense law to equip Israel with refueling jets

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

US defense law to equip Israel with refueling jets


www.ynetnews.com

The legislation, knowns as the "United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012," allows Israel to purchase American KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft for the first time. Thus far, the Bush and Obama administrations refused to sell planes of this kind to the Jewish state, primarily in order to bar it from launching a massive aerial strike on Iran.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.haaretz.com[/u rl]
[url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/more_obama_disingenuousness_on_israel.html]www.americanthinker.com


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
U.S. prepared options to provide aerial refueling for IDF planes




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Yay! The boom boom of out right war grows ever louder.

With the sanctions, cyber attacks and scientist assassinations inflicts upon Iran and the possible counter-attacks by the Iranians with bombings in India and now Bulgaria, a low level war is already a reality.

If and when these tankers are purchased or given to the Israelis, the IAF will have (in theory) the capability to launch an all out aerial assault of the Iranian nuclear programme and military machine without overt US support.

Does this increase the chances of at least an aerial war? Or is it a political bluff looking to enhance Obama's image on Israel in the run-up to the November elections?

www.ynetnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-7-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
It doesnt give them the ability to actually destroy the Iranian nuclear program only provision of the largest ground penetrating munition and a platform able to lift it would do that.

What it does provide is the ability to pretend to be the ones doing the attacking on their own.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Those enhanced busters are now ready for use, explicitly aimed at the Iranian nuclear facilities.


The U.S. air force's new 13.6-tonne bunker-buster - the world's largest non-nuclear bomb - is "ready to go" if the U.S. decides to strike heavily fortified Iranian nuclear facilities Michael Donley, the U.S. air force secretary, said the bomb would be available "if it needs to go today." The endorsement of the so-called Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) comes after concerns the weapon still needed development if it was to be effective against Iran's deepest installations. Read more: www.vancouversun.com...


www.vancouversun.com...

The White house came out in March and denied that that US would be providing enhanced military equipment, including tankers, to Israel.


President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not discuss in their meetings this week a reported Israeli request for advanced U.S. military technology that could be used against Iran, the White House said on Thursday. "In meetings the president had there was no such agreement proposed or reached," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Obama and Netanyahu meet in the Oval office for two hours on Monday and then had lunch together.

Carney's comment came after an Israeli official quoted by the Maariv newspaper earlier on Thursday indicated that Israel has asked the United States for advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes that could improve its ability to attack Iran's underground nuclear sites. On Tuesday, Haaretz quoted a U.S. official as indicating that Netanyahu had asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for the GBU-28 bunker busting bombs as well as for advanced refueling aircraft.


www.haaretz.com...

These tankers are now free to be purchased, how long until the bunker busters are as well?

edit on 29-7-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Yes. That was my point.

Only the USA has an aircraft capable of delivering that weapon. Only that weapon is suitable for the job.

Therefore the attack will be the USA. These tankers allow Israel to assist. Nothing more.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Even more of our tech sold to a terrorist nation. Why are we doing this for a nation that we have no treaty with? Not to mention we give them the money to buy these things. Imo Israel is nothing but a welfare terrorist state.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I really don't think the US, under Obama, wants to involve itself in this mission, even though when it comes down to it, they will feel that they have little choice given the rhetoric they have employed.

This is a crisis, and in a crisis the individuals and group think within the American establishment will resort back to tried and tested techniques. This could mean "a lead from the back" role as was played in ousting Qaddafi, i.e. provide the weapons and intelligence and possibly a few missiles but generally try and let Israel lead the assault.

OR

To prevent an inflamed Middle East "street" toward Israel in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, even though and perhaps as a result of Gulf leaders connivance in such a plan against Iran, take a forward role and leave Israel out of it, mainly, as was encouraged and maintained during the Gulf War as Iraqi scuds fell on Israeli cities.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Peruvianmonk because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Even more of our tech sold to a terrorist nation. Why are we doing this for a nation that we have no treaty with? Not to mention we give them the money to buy these things. Imo Israel is nothing but a welfare terrorist state.


The british public wonders this also.

The UK armed forces pay to use the weapons they deploy when fighting alongside the USA.

Israel gets the weapons for free.

One would think you'd provide the charity weapons to those who'll actually aid you in a crisis. Its curious.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by buster2010
Even more of our tech sold to a terrorist nation. Why are we doing this for a nation that we have no treaty with? Not to mention we give them the money to buy these things. Imo Israel is nothing but a welfare terrorist state.


The british public wonders this also.

The UK armed forces pay to use the weapons they deploy when fighting alongside the USA.

Israel gets the weapons for free.

One would think you'd provide the charity weapons to those who'll actually aid you in a crisis. Its curious.


Exactly the UK is being used just like America through it's bought and blackmailed government. And what does Israel do with weapons that are donated to them? They turn around and sell them on the black market.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I held off adding my comment to see if something might occur to anyone else to ask here. It hasn't come up yet so here goes Capt. Obvious with a real zinger of a question....

What nation is playing host for Airspace to Israeli refueling planes in support of a military strike on Iran? Sure..They might want one over the Persian Gulf, but we could have refueled them there ourselves and not GIVEN them the aircraft which add a huge capability to the IDF. Is Iraq playing host? I think we can assume Turkey isn't a consideration. Georgia maybe? All this has to happen so far north of the Gulf. Hundreds and Hundreds of miles north...both directions. It has to require support over land too.

I just wonder...who is hosting the Israeli Air Force? This should be real interesting to watch develop. My impression was Iraq wanted nothing to do with being a direct party to an attack on Iran. They had their war..and lost the last one.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I held off adding my comment to see if something might occur to anyone else to ask here. It hasn't come up yet so here goes Capt. Obvious with a real zinger of a question....

What nation is playing host for Airspace to Israeli refueling planes in support of a military strike on Iran? Sure..They might want one over the Persian Gulf, but we could have refueled them there ourselves and not GIVEN them the aircraft which add a huge capability to the IDF. Is Iraq playing host? I think we can assume Turkey isn't a consideration. Georgia maybe? All this has to happen so far north of the Gulf. Hundreds and Hundreds of miles north...both directions. It has to require support over land too.

I just wonder...who is hosting the Israeli Air Force? This should be real interesting to watch develop. My impression was Iraq wanted nothing to do with being a direct party to an attack on Iran. They had their war..and lost the last one.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


I'd go with Saudi Arabia as the obvious choice. They just wont admit it afterwards.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
S & F

Finally real story here.

The sale has been blocked for a long time and talked about even longer. People are looking in every crack and crevice for details of a possible strike on Iran from Israel then these are exactly the types of details one should be looking for and not a bunch of over the top rhetoric about he said, she said.


Good find



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


From March 2010.


Saudi Arabia denied Wednesday a report in Britain's Sunday Express that said the Kingdom offered the Israel Air Force flight paths to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Sunday Express reported this week that the Saudis had agreed to turn a blind eye and not interfere should Israel and the United States attack Iranian nuclear facilities via Saudi air space. A senior Saudi official said Wednesday morning that the report was baseless, adding that his country would demand that the newspaper print a retraction and apology.


www.haaretz.com...

If it were an Israeli attack I suspect it would be through Saudi that they would fly. Where as the US could launch from their carriers, negating the obvious PR impacts of American/Israeli jets flying over Arab soil to attack a neighbor.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I took some real time to build a thread about this specific issue. The logistics and physical distances involved vs. the equipment available and options to get there. Saudi does add some options, although Iraq still has to play nice on it. If they are forced to go around the southern tip of Iraq for some reason? Well... These are the numbers I'd put together for my Geography thread about this war:


Tehran to the Gulf Waters = 418 Miles x 2 - 836 Miles for the round trip.
Tehran to the Afghani Border = 531 Miles x 2 = 1062 Miles for the round trip

F-15 Range = 3,400+ miles if configured as a flying gas can / 1,000 Nautical miles for combat operations
F-16 Range = 2,620 miles in gas can config / 340 Miles for combat operations
F-18 Range = 500 Nautical Miles
F-117 Range = 1,250 Miles in gas can config / 765 Miles for combat operations (this one at least gets there!)
AH-64 Apache Range = 1,180 Miles in gas can config / 300 Miles for combat operations
Source

If this attack happens, I wish them luck and I want to see it succeed. Why? Simple. It has nothing to do with Iran deserving this or my thinking that this needs to happen unless Iran starts the dance themselves. It's because if this starts and we don't win in the opening 24-48 hours, we'll be fighting this a decade from now....or no one will be left to fight anything again inside a week. One of the two..and neither is something I want to even consider.


I'll tell ya though... Iran is HUGE....They have their work cut out for them, and this is all over a nation bristling with SAM sites and other surprises. They've been preparing and building at least 10 years and a fair argument could be made to say more like 30..for THIS event. This day. Nothing about this is gonna be easy.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





f this attack happens, I wish them luck and I want to see it succeed. Why? Simple. It has nothing to do with Iran deserving this or my thinking that this needs to happen unless Iran starts the dance themselves. It's because if this starts and we don't win in the opening 24-48 hours, we'll be fighting this a decade from now....or no one will be left to fight anything again inside a week. One of the two..and neither is something I want to even consider.


That, unfortunately, is a fair point. However even if it does succeed in this time, Iran will surely retaliate in some form, as is their right, and this will be used to justify regime change and a massive aerial assault on the whole state and MEK/other insurgent groups.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 



That, unfortunately, is a fair point. However even if it does succeed in this time, Iran will surely retaliate in some form, as is their right, and this will be used to justify regime change and a massive aerial assault on the whole state and MEK/other insurgent groups.


You know what keeps coming to my mind in all this? Not just Iran but Syria too..the whole rotten mess. I think back to a big computer with a child's mind, learning how to die. Learning so well about the lessons of death that it actually, in the fictional movie, learned the lesson even Humans have failed to.

The movie was Wargames and the computer? The WOPR. For those who didn't see it, it went postal by insisting it was going to play a Nuclear War for real after cracking the nation's launch codes. Well, the end I refer to sees the WOPR trying to figure out how to win before launching the real weapons by playing Tic-Tac-Toe ever faster and faster. Finally...it learns and has a final message.

"The only winning move is not to play."

A computer in a movie showed us the lesson we haven't learned over thousands of years of playing endless Tic-Tac-Toe.


Ready for the next round?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



"The only winning move is not to play."


Yes, a great film. Unfortunately the men who control these countries do not know how to stop. Everything is a big, cynical game where lives are moved like pawn pieces on a chess board.

Time for women to be given a turn to govern in their style. MAYBE they would do a better job, for us all.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Haaretz blog on the deal.


"Supplying Israel with defensive equipment including air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities and specialized munitions" – This is an extremely interesting detail and has been seized upon by the Israeli media. In actuality, it does not herald any real improvement for Israel's armed forces in the near future. The IDF would like to enlarge its aerial tanker fleet, allowing more flexibility for long-range missions. But the U.S. Air Force's huge KC-135 tanker fleet has been in service for over fifty years and will probably carry on flying for another couple of decades at least - it soldiers on thanks to the wealth of experience of USAF maintainers, and the huge number of planes in service (over 400). Since the new KC-46 will not be coming into service for at least another five years, the only way Israel can obtain American tankers in the near future will be through a transfer of a few old USAF KC-135s. This would be a logistical nightmare for the Israeli Air-Force, forced to deal with maintaining fifty-year old jets, and more than one officer has told me that in such a case, they would rather stick with the converted Boeing 707 airliners which the IAF is already using.

"Missile defense capabilities" has already been covered and "specialized munitions" has been interpreted to mean "bunker-busting" missiles. These are indeed valuable components in the armory of an army planning to attack well fortified nuclear installations and missile silos. More of these would certainly be welcome, but once again, Israel has already received 55 GBU-28 bunker-busters from the Obama administration.


www.haaretz.com...

In regards to the refueling planes, it would seem Israel may wait for the newer version, the KC-46. Apparently Israel already has dozens of the original bunker busting bombs? It is hardly a stretch to expect a delivery of this new and improved version.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
so I guess we've green-lighted the attack then. I mean, it's not like they're "purchasing" these planes with THEIR money. This is the "aid" money we've given them.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Israel doesn't need to be hosted by neighbouring nations to launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The most direct route is through Jordan and into Iraq. Jordanian air defences are no threat to Israeli aircraft and if a warning was not enough for Jordanian defences not to interfere then they can be suppressed. israeli combat air patrols over the few fighter bases will keep most things on the ground. Iraq is in even worse shape and is still to get their hands on F-16 ordered from the US.

www.bbc.co.uk...

If push came to shove then the Jordanian/Iraq route is the easiest route for the Israelis to establish elements of their Boeing 707 tanker fleet. They would likely establish the well protected tankers in a holding area over Iraq.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 14 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def