Israel strikes on Iran

[Graugrun]

Israel's had unique modification rights on F-35I ever since they ordered it.

Yeah - I was being facecious - somehow they always seem to get the rights and privileges that no one else, bar the developers have...

 

[DWG]

Yeah - I was being facecious

I did wonder if that was the case, but always useful to remind people of the exceptions to the rules if they may not know them.

 

[Archibald]

Israeli Strikes Knocked Out All Of Iran’s S-300 Air Defense Systems: Officials

The apparent destruction of the last three Iranian S-300s would pave the way for expanded Israeli airstrikes. The apparent destruction of the last three Iranian long-range S-300 systems would help pave the way for more Israeli airstrikes.

www.twz.com

I had never realized before that Iran only had four S-300 systems. And now they have exactly zero.

Smart move from Israel: a) they respected US red lines "don't strike nuclear nor oil facilities" but b) they are now asking Iran "how does it feels to be very naked and very vulnerable ?"

 

[Grey Havoc]

F35s didn't have wet pylons?!? Dafuq?!?

Yet another cost cutting measure. From what I understand, the assumption was that there would always be tanker aircraft and friendly airfields available, so drop tanks and the like were unnecessary. Needless to say, that was one of many ideas from the time that did not age well.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Smart move from Israel: a) they respected US red lines "don't strike nuclear nor oil facilities" but b) they are now asking Iran "how does it feels to be very naked and very vulnerable ?"

Though the Israelis apparently slightly tweaked that by agreeing to not attack active nuclear sites. One of their targets was reportedly a currently mothballed (though likely to have been reactivated in the near future) nuclear test range that had been used for testing conventional explosive components and the like of nuclear weapon designs and which was still being used for other military purposes.

 

[Dilandu]

I had never realized before that Iran only had four S-300 systems. And now they have exactly zero.

Well, they brought only four divisions of S-300PM in 2010s. According to officially published data, they specifically insisted that they wanted S-300PM, despite the fact that it was already out of production, and there were more advanced versions available. Eventually they got S-300PMU-2 that were initially ordered by Syria, but not delivered due to Syrian civil war starting.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Yet another cost cutting measure. From what I understand, the assumption was that there would always be tanker aircraft and friendly airfields available, so drop tanks and the like were unnecessary. Needless to say, that was one of many ideas from the time that did not age well.

There were originally plans for the two inner pylons to be able to carry drop tanks but at some point, I think the US (and other operators) lost interest. It became evident that safe drop separation would require a new design rather than just reusing something already in the USAF or USN inventory so paying for that probably wasn't a high priority. I think the new design they were looking at was somewhat bulbous towards front like EFTs for the Rafale and Mirage 2000. It's possible that about the time those plans were abandoned the USAF was becoming more interested in the idea of reduced-RCS tanks like we've seen tested on the F-22, so they might have figured that they'd do something like that if/when the money became available.

As far as I am aware the plumbing is still all there for those two inner pylons to carry external tanks on all F-35s. So, if reporting is to believe Israel built and fielded some EFTs of their own.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Reduced RCS drop tanks?

https://www.twz.com/28515/lockheed-...s-with-drop-tanks-and-thats-a-very-good-thing

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-external-tank-capacity-of-the-F-35

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Reduced RCS drop tanks?

https://www.twz.com/28515/lockheed-...s-with-drop-tanks-and-thats-a-very-good-thing

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-external-tank-capacity-of-the-F-35

That was the design they were looking at, but I don't think it had any LO design features. I was just theorizing that perhaps the USAF and others decided to forgo building these in the hopes we could make a "better" reduced-RCS tank later, similar to what has been tested on the F-22 recently. There were other priorities for the F-35 program to resolve before fielding external drop tanks anyway. Only so much money to go around.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Israeli Strikes Knocked Out All Of Iran’s S-300 Air Defense Systems: Officials

The apparent destruction of the last three Iranian S-300s would pave the way for expanded Israeli airstrikes. The apparent destruction of the last three Iranian long-range S-300 systems would help pave the way for more Israeli airstrikes.

www.twz.com

This article is written by someone that knows next to nothing about Iran's military.
Especially when there are considerably more competent domestic SAM systems.

 

[SK2]

This article is written by someone that knows next to nothing about Iran's military.
Especially when there are considerably more competent domestic SAM systems.

Judging from the results, it seems the domestic SAMs did not react well also

 

[BullpupRafale]

Judging from the results, it seems the domestic SAMs did not react well also

You are going to get laughed out by Iranians.

 

[quellish]

Yet another cost cutting measure. From what I understand, the assumption was that there would always be tanker aircraft and friendly airfields available, so drop tanks and the like were unnecessary. Needless to say, that was one of many ideas from the time that did not age well.

The F-35 was originally intended to use drop tanks. In fact, it was to use the Navy 480 gal tanks used on the F-18. Lockheed found that this would be problematic. The F-35 was designed to use the two inner hard points for fuel tanks. Some F-35s were delivered with some of the required "plumbing" but some others apparently were not.

There were problems safely separating both the tanks and the ordinance on other hard points. This paper goes into detail on the second problem and a redesigned tank and pylon that were studied as solutions:

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2008-376

The problem there is that with the 480 gal F-18 tank dropping anything off the other pylons would have an unacceptable risk of striking the tank. Having a JDAM hit your drop tank is not a good thing.

This would have required a customer to invest in the development of the new tanks and pylons, which would not have been inexpensive. Many of the F-35 operators - including Israel - expressed interest in external tanks, but none of them were willing to pay the development cost. Really, it would have taken investment from the largest F-35 customers (USAF, USN) to make it happen.

Because of that, the software to support dropping tanks was never finished. There are also no Lockheed-approved pylons that could support an external tank.

 

[yahya]

Stand-off character of the attack as evidenced by:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/10/no-foreign-warplanes-entered-the-skies-over-tehran.html

 

[DWG]

Stand-off character of the attack as evidenced by:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/10/no-foreign-warplanes-entered-the-skies-over-tehran.html

I wouldn't count that as a reliable secondary source, cf

No foreign warplanes entered the skies over Tehran.

Israeli pilots will not dare to enter a well defended Iranian airspace.

1) How does he know? The Iranian defence minister is not a reliable source on this. If they know they did, then they have reasons not to admit it. If they don't know, then they just can't be certain either way, because stealth.

2) Only an idiot enters an engagement zone if he doesn't need to.

3) Recovery of boosters in Iraq merely means some missiles were launched over Iraq, not that all missiles were launched over Iraq. This is basic logic.

Three industrial buildings, allegedly used for solid fuel missile motor production, have been hit. But there have been no reports of secondary explosions at those sites which one would expect if fuel had been hit.

Why would SRBs explode? Their fuel burns, not explodes.

In the end, of course it was a stand-off attack, that's the professional way to do it. Did IDF/AF aircraft enter Iranian airspace? Only the IDF and possibly the US know for sure.

 

[Archibald]

Moon of Alabama ? what kind of military website is that ?

 

[yahya]

Run by a former German army officer.

 

[Archibald]

So, what ?

 

[DWG]

Run by a former German army officer.

Who appears not to know very much about air defence, or air operations, or missiles, and is fairly shaky on basic logic.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Who appears not to know very much about air defence, or air operations, or missiles, and is fairly shaky on basic logic.

The Iranian defence minister is not a reliable source on this. If they know they did, then they have reasons not to admit it. If they don't know, then they just can't be certain either way, because stealth.

Why would SRBs explode? Their fuel burns, not explodes.

In the end, of course it was a stand-off attack, that's the professional way to do it. Did IDF/AF aircraft enter Iranian airspace? Only the IDF and possibly the US know for sure.

 

[Forest Green]

Stand-off character of the attack as evidenced by:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/10/no-foreign-warplanes-entered-the-skies-over-tehran.html

We're using personal blogs as evidence now?

So, what ?

Can anyone even verify the author for a start? But apart from that, what knowledge would a former German army officer have about Israeli airforce operations against Iran?

All we know for sure is that it's 1450km from Israel to Tehran and all of the countries in between denied access for the purpose of striking Iran. Tehran is also 460km from its nearest western border. So far we've seen just one image of a missile booster stage and at least 9 satellite-confirmed impacts on target.

 

[SK2]

You are going to get laughed out by Iranians.

I doubt the crushed IRIADF members would share the same view

 

[yahya]

And here you have the source that you will accept:

Israeli F-16I Shown Loaded-Up With Four Rampage Stand-Off Missiles (Updated)

Air-launched ballistic missiles have become an Israeli weapon of choice for striking high-value targets, including in recent strikes on Iran.

www.twz.com

Israel's Reprisal Strike Carefully Calculated, Unclear If Jets Ever Flew Over Iran

The operation was a balancing act of risk mitigation and deterrence that aimed to weaken Iran's offensive and defensive capabilities.

www.twz.com

Says practically the same.

 

[BullpupRafale]

I doubt the crushed IRIADF members would share the same view

Deflection.

And here you have the source that you will accept:

Israeli F-16I Shown Loaded-Up With Four Rampage Stand-Off Missiles (Updated)

Air-launched ballistic missiles have become an Israeli weapon of choice for striking high-value targets, including in recent strikes on Iran.

www.twz.com

Israel's Reprisal Strike Carefully Calculated, Unclear If Jets Ever Flew Over Iran

The operation was a balancing act of risk mitigation and deterrence that aimed to weaken Iran's offensive and defensive capabilities.

www.twz.com

Says practically the same.

...and? No evidence to prove supposed elimination of nearly all or every S-300 AD SAM system.

 

[quellish]

Deflection.

...and? No evidence to prove supposed elimination of nearly all or every S-300 AD SAM system.

Also no proof that any sites remain operational

It’s Schrödinger’s air defense network!

 

[Arjen]

So they're well prepared for an attack by Schrödinger's missiles. Imagine the relief they must feel. Or not.

 

[Forest Green]

Technically the F-35 is a Schrödinger aircraft. It's not there unless you look and see it but you can't.

 

[FighterJock]

The Schrodinger's cat has got nothing on the F-35 that is for sure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Three industrial buildings, allegedly used for solid fuel missile motor production, have been hit. But there have been no reports of secondary explosions at those sites which one would expect if fuel had been hit.

Why would SRBs explode? Their fuel burns, not explodes.

Have you ever seen what happens when you ignite a cracked solid rocket?

Or ever heard of the PEPCON Disaster outside Las Vegas? Where the factory making the Space Shuttle's SRB fuel blew up?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yet another cost cutting measure. From what I understand, the assumption was that there would always be tanker aircraft and friendly airfields available, so drop tanks and the like were unnecessary.

*facepalm*!!!eleventy-one!!!

 

[quellish]

STATEMENT OF GREGORY ULMER VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER F-35 PROGRAM LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION BEFORE THE READINESS AND TACTICAL AIR & LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEES HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON F-35 PROGRAM UPDATE: SUSTAINMENT, PRODUCTION AND AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES
NOVEMBER 13, 2019

Extended Range: While the F-35 as configured today, exceeds the specified range performance, we’re engaged in an industry-funded study with Elbit Systems-Cyclone focused on a 600-gallon external tank and an associated jettison-able pylon for the F-35A to significantly increase range and loiter time.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Extended Range: While the F-35 as configured today, exceeds the specified range performance, we’re engaged in an industry-funded study with Elbit Systems-Cyclone focused on a 600-gallon external tank and an associated jettison-able pylon for the F-35A to significantly increase range and loiter time.

600 gallons, that's roughly 4000lbs of fuel (~6.7lbs/gal). Per side. Darn near 50% more fuel volume (18klbs without external tanks), but the extra drag means not that much extra range. I'd still bet on at least 25% more range, though, so ~1500km range.

 

[357Mag]

This thread is related to the alleged Israeli strike preparations against Iran of mid-October 2024 as indicated by the leaked documents published on the web at:

Middle East Spectator – MES

— ❗️// EXCLUSIVE: An informed source within the U.S. intelligence community has shared with us an extremely sensitive 'top secret' U.S. intelligence document from the NGIA, dated October 15-16, detailing Israeli preparations for an extensive strike inside Iran According to the report, the U.S...

t.me

Quotation:

All -
Going forward, it would fall to the U.S. to use deep penetrating bombs like the “ Massive Ordnance Penetrator “ ( MOP…also sometimes referred to a MOAB ….” Mother of all bombs “ ) to strike Iran’s deepest buried Nuclear facilities. To my understanding, Israel lacks that capability.

The U.S. already sells fighter and transport aircraft to Israel; but not large strategic bombers. And of course, the U.S. munitions Israel is allowed access to is a sizeable list.
That the U.S. might mount a joint strike(s) w/ Israel on Iran’s key nuclear program sites would surprise few.

I have found very little info about U.S. efforts to equip some ICBMs w/ deep penetrating conventional explosive warheads. Perhaps others here can offer more insights ?

As regards potential closing of the Straight of Hormuz, that has been a long-standing threat from Iran. Given their location, any such actions would be in their domain; and not farmed-out to other members of their Axis to be performed completely independent of direct Iranian participation.


With regards,

357Mag

 

[Forest Green]

The Iran hostage crisis was a very long time ago (40+ years) and understandable at the time due to the history. More relevant and more recent is Iran's use of its Houthi proxies to strike interantional shipping in the red sea.

As regards the airliner in 1988, that was a direct result of Iran again striking international shipping.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Going forward, it would fall to the U.S. to use deep penetrating bombs like the “ Massive Ordnance Penetrator “ ( MOP…also sometimes referred to a MOAB ….” Mother of all bombs “ ) to strike Iran’s deepest buried Nuclear facilities. To my understanding, Israel lacks that capability.

Side note: MOP and MOAB are not the same thing. MOP is the ~27,000lb GBU-57, MOAB is the ~22,000lb GBU-43. MOP only has about 5200lbs of explosive charge, while MOAB has over 18,000lbs of explosives and a yield of roughly 22,000lbs of TNT.

MOAB is also an air burst type.

I have found very little info about U.S. efforts to equip some ICBMs w/ deep penetrating conventional explosive warheads. Perhaps others here can offer more insights ?

I remember seeing some things like using reentry bodies as the penetrating warhead on missiles, but that was for something like ATACMS or maybe a newer missile that was roughly Polaris sized.

You don't want a conventional ballistic missile strike coming from an ICBM or SLBM location because it's going to look like a nuclear strike to anyone/everyone watching.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I have found very little info about U.S. efforts to equip some ICBMs w/ deep penetrating conventional explosive warheads. Perhaps others here can offer more insights ?

Not exactly efforts, but TACMS was envisioned with a penetrating warhead variant. The new nosecone IIRC has a very distinct taper.
And LM did some research on a SLBM delivered bunker busting RV.

 

[357Mag]

Side note: MOP and MOAB are not the same thing. MOP is the ~27,000lb GBU-57, MOAB is the ~22,000lb GBU-43. MOP only has about 5200lbs of explosive charge, while MOAB has over 18,000lbs of explosives and a yield of roughly 22,000lbs of TNT.

MOAB is also an air burst type.



I remember seeing some things like using reentry bodies as the penetrating warhead on missiles, but that was for something like ATACMS or maybe a newer missile that was roughly Polaris sized.

You don't want a conventional ballistic missile strike coming from an ICBM or SLBM location because it's going to look like a nuclear strike to anyone/everyone watching.

Scott -

Thanx for the info and clarifications !

I saw one of the inert big bombs on display along a highway just Southwest of McAllister, OK. Thought maybe these are made @ the Savannah Depot in Ok

With regards,
357Mag

 

[357Mag]

The Iran hostage crisis was a very long time ago (40+ years) and understandable at the time due to the history. More relevant and more recent is Iran's use of its Houthi proxies to strike interantional shipping in the red sea.

As regards the airliner in 1988, that was a direct result of Iran again striking international shipping.

Forest-

Howdy !

Then Iranian flight that the U.S. Navy shot down, generated out of Bandar Abbas AB…
or so it appeared to the Navy. The airliner’s flight track made the Navy uncomfortable to the point they simply had to respond. One scenario postulated was that the airliner could have been used to mask Iranian fighter jets flying in close formation to the larger plane.


With regards,
357Mag

 

[TsrJoe]

No excuse ...

Iran Air flight 655 | Background, Events, Investigation, & Facts | Britannica

Iran Air flight 655, flight of an Iranian airliner that was shot down by the USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 people on board. The passenger plane, which was in Iranian airspace, had been incorrectly identified as a fighter jet.

www.britannica.com

 

[357Mag]

Side note: MOP and MOAB are not the same thing. MOP is the ~27,000lb GBU-57, MOAB is the ~22,000lb GBU-43. MOP only has about 5200lbs of explosive charge, while MOAB has over 18,000lbs of explosives and a yield of roughly 22,000lbs of TNT.

MOAB is also an air burst type.



I remember seeing some things like using reentry bodies as the penetrating warhead on missiles, but that was for something like ATACMS or maybe a newer missile that was roughly Polaris sized.

You don't want a conventional ballistic missile strike coming from an ICBM or SLBM location because it's going to look like a nuclear strike to anyone/everyone watching.

Scott -

Howdy !

As regards any postulated U.S. use of a notional “ conventional” armed ICBM or SLBM on Iranian nuclear facilities…

Those who the U.S. would not want to potentially alarm, would need to be prior-informed of any impending launch(es), and the intended terminus of the trajectory.
This is not an unknown practice.

This is not as sensational idea as it may sound. Even for attacks using aircraft and cruise missiles, Iranian airspace defenses would first be neutralized, which is something
the Israelis recently demonstrated. If Iran were to some how cobble together any form of ABM defense, the U.S. and/or Israelis would also take these out prior to attacking the nuclear sites.

Given that Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities cannot reasonably be further hardened on short notice, Iran would be left to watch the attacks unfold.


With regards,
357Mag