What will a real attack on Iran's nuclear program look like?

I'm putting this here and not in the WW3 forum for 2 reasons. 1: I'm hoping it will illicit more serious and informed responses and 2: because such an attack is not going to start WW3. Russia is in no condition to go to war with anyone, and China's relationship with Iran is loose enough that it wouldn't be worth it to them.

Please don't derail the thread with your anti-Jew or anti-Israel or anti-West hate. This isn't even about whether or not this should be done or who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, it's simply about the (hypothetical) mission. If you want the TL;DR version, skip down to below the *********************. Before that, this is mostly background rambling that I usually do.

I'm of a mixed mind about U.S. involvement. IF such an attack had to be carried out, I'd hope the U.S. could stay out of it and just let Israel handle it. However, I think U.S. involvement would both increase the odds of success of the mission and actually decrease the odds of the strike sparking a broader war.

Doesn't the involvement of more nations mean a broader war? Not necessarily. Obviously, the attack would be an act of war, but whether an actual war starts depends on Iran's response. If just Israel conducts the attack, I think it's highly likely Iran goes to war with Israel, which would include Iran's proxy terrorist organizations in the region and eventually some of the other regional powers probably get involved. While the West could in theory just sit it out, it would still be costly for us because of the disruption of oil supplies during a long, bloody war in the Middle East.

So the best scenario for us is if no war actually starts as a result of the attack, and I think the most likely course of action to produce that result is if the U.S. joins the attack, maybe with the U.K. as well. Facing such a coalition, it's possible Iran would decide to just take the bloody nose and limit their response the way they did when the U.S. killed Soleimani. Maybe launch some token "retaliatory" missiles that are carefully targeted to not kill any Americans and let some of their terrorist proxies try to exact revenge. This would probably depend on the initial attack being limited to just the nuclear facilities and supporting air defenses. If we launched a broader strike, it would probably force them to respond more seriously.

Of course all of that is probabilities and guesses and there are no guarantees. I just think that's the mostly likely way to actually avoid a serious war starting from the attack.

*************************************************************************************************

So how would it be done? In the new Top Gun movie the U.S. flies in literally under the radar and conducts the attack in F-18s. I think some dramatic license was taken here. First of all, there is conveniently only one target. In reality, Iran's nuclear program is spread around the country. Obviously not all of it would have to be attacked, but still to take out key parts of their nuclear infrastructure would require a broader strike package, probably with a number of different airframes involved right?

Exactly how it would be done would also depend on who is going in. If it's just Israel, the obvious choice would be their F-35s. I've read that the aircraft's range could limit their ability to hit all the required targets. I also thought I read somewhere that Israel was trying to figure out how to extend their range. Obviously an air-to-air refueling capability would help. Israel wants some KC-46s badly, but I also read that that is delayed. I also think just trying to avoid radar is unlikely. Even if the attack aircraft are LO, they'd still want to take out some air defenses right?

In the background I talked about the pros and cons of U.S. involvement. What if we just provide the air refueling but don't actually go into Iran for the strikes? That's helpful, but I still think the best option is if the U.S. goes full involvement. Then what's the best tool for the job? B-2s? Possibly aided by sea launched or standoff missiles to take out air defenses?

What do ya'll think? I'm a complete amateur with this stuff so some of my thinking is probably way off base. I was Air Force for 13 years but I was a fuels guy they don't teach us much tactics and mission planning.

a reply to: face23785

I know a answer for you title, but posting it here would ruin the plan.
To hot for you and to hot for Iran, get it ?

a reply to: face23785

Top gun seemed to be a solid outline but probably drones.

a reply to: face23785

It will look very similar to Stuxnet but more advanced. Why perform overt strikes when you can perform covert ones that take years to attribute based on their complexity?

a reply to: face23785

those who are within the blast radius will reach a temperature of 6000 to 10,000 degrees kelvin, or for us none technical minded 10340.33 to 17540.33 Fahrenheit.

that's damn hot.

a reply to: face23785

Israel already has tankers that can escort their F-35s to the area. The question is would they have to go around various countries, or if they sneak over them. They’d probably use a mixed force. The F-35s would go in, with JDAMs, and they’d have F-15s just outside the area as back up if needed.

Side note, Israel is coming to Red Flag next year.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought Israel's current tankers had some kind of problem that's why they wanted the 46s so bad.

What if we go with them? Do you think it's a good situation for the B-2? Some of the underground sites would be difficult to destroy with JDAMs won't they?

a reply to: face23785

The -46 has longer legs, meaning fewer tankers, meaning less risk.

One of the fun things about nuclear sites is that you don’t have to blow up the underground facility. They have lots of support structures that come above ground that if you blow up, you knock the site out for a long time.

We aren’t going to risk B-2s for what’s essential a low value target. Right now, Israel is the only ones in any sort of danger if Iran did build a bomb. Despite our relationship with them, we aren’t sending B-2s. We would use ISR, and maybe tanker support, but that would be about the extent of it.

a reply to: face23785

Imo….if any nuclear strike could be held off for about 1+ years for the B-12 to be fully operational…then in view of the B-12 being able to fly pilotless…..that would be a choice, I presume, to send in and drop the nuke and then loiter/orbit for further commands to drop again if needed. With no pilots….you remove the hazard of having pilots to be potentially exposed to nuclear fallout as well as EMP possibilities while remaining in the area. Assuming the B-12 can maneuver, avoid shockwaves.

👽

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

The -46 has longer legs, meaning fewer tankers, meaning less risk.

One of the fun things about nuclear sites is that you don’t have to blow up the underground facility. They have lots of support structures that come above ground that if you blow up, you knock the site out for a long time.

We aren’t going to risk B-2s for what’s essential a low value target. Right now, Israel is the only ones in any sort of danger if Iran did build a bomb. Despite our relationship with them, we aren’t sending B-2s. We would use ISR, and maybe tanker support, but that would be about the extent of it.

Good call, I didn't think about whether it would be worth it to us to use our best bomber, especially given we only have what, 19 of em now? And the B-21 is still years away from being combat ready.

a reply to: face23785

Twenty. One of the test vehicles was brought to production standards after the line was closed. So they ended up with 21 all told.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

The -46 has longer legs, meaning fewer tankers, meaning less risk.

One of the fun things about nuclear sites is that you don’t have to blow up the underground facility. They have lots of support structures that come above ground that if you blow up, you knock the site out for a long time.

We aren’t going to risk B-2s for what’s essential a low value target. Right now, Israel is the only ones in any sort of danger if Iran did build a bomb. Despite our relationship with them, we aren’t sending B-2s. We would use ISR, and maybe tanker support, but that would be about the extent of it.

How is Israel in danger, if Iran builds some nukes. Did you forget that Israel has over 90 nukes. If i was Iran, i would want nuclear weapons to keep other countries from invading my land.

a reply to: Echo007

It doesn’t matter if they have them too, if Iran was to launch a first strike. Them having nukes doesn’t magically make them not a threat if a true believer decides he’s ready for his afterlife rewards and is going to take Israel with him.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Echo007

It doesn’t matter if they have them too, if Iran was to launch a first strike. Them having nukes doesn’t magically make them not a threat if a true believer decides he’s ready for his afterlife rewards and is going to take Israel with him.

It's amazing people that wouldn't trust Christian zealots with a paintball gun are perfectly fine with Islamic extremists having nukes.