Israel’s incoming Defense Minister Yisrael Katz declared conditions are optimal for targeting Iran’s nuclear program, citing recent successful Israeli airstrikes and broad national consensus.
Late Monday night, incoming Defense Minister Israel Katz said that the diplomatic, operational, and tactical situation for attacking Iran’s nuclear program has never been as doable, realistic, and likely as it is now.
Katz noted how two previous Israeli strikes on Iran this year – which were actually counter-attacks following massive attacks by Tehran on the Jewish state on April 13-14 and October 1 – have made it clear how superior the Israeli Air Force is to even the most advanced aspects of the Islamic Republic’s air defense systems.
“There is an opportunity to achieve the most important goal – to thwart and remove the threat of destruction hanging over the State of Israel…Today, there is a broad national and defense establishment consensus that we need to thwart the Iranian nuclear program, and there is an understanding that this is doable – not only on the security front, but also on the diplomatic front,” said Katz.
Despite Katz’s statement, many officials, including former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, had called for the air force to strike Iran’s nuclear program on October 26.
Instead, the Air Force was ordered by the government to strike about 20 ballistic missile production and air defense sites in Iran.
At press time, Katz’s office had not responded to an inquiry about whether there really was a readiness by Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear program, given that the government chose not to on October 26.
No ceasefire
In addition, the new defense minister said that there would be no ceasefire with Hezbollah until it commits to remaining North of the Litani River in Lebanon, but also not until Israel secures the right to enforce that Hezbollah promise with military force as well as the right going forward to attack attempts to smuggle new weapons to Hezbollah.
Although the IDF has for years been attacking weapon smuggling attempts focused on Syria, its war between wars on that issue started too late to prevent Hezbollah from – until the current war – growing its rocket arsenal to around 150,000 rockets.
Israel can’t arm itself with 30,000-pound bombs in time against Iran
Short of leasing an American strategic bomber and providing nationality to the pilots and maintenance crew, no option would be operationally ready within months if not years.
Last week, Dr. Eric R. Mandel made a compelling argument for deterring the Iranian regime through the use of the largest bunker busters. While I wholeheartedly agree with him, I disagree with the methods of delivery from a technical standpoint. This is an important debate as Dr. Mandel must lobby for the most effective weapons that can be operational quickly.
Why is the 30,000lb GBU-57 bomb important:
The GBU-57 would, in Dr. Mandel’s words, “slow their nuclear program, prevent a retaliatory ballistic missile attack on Israel, and de-escalate the conflict.” If Israel can destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, “Iran may be much more hesitant to respond to the Israeli attack on Iranian soil or move towards weaponization and complete a functioning atomic bomb.”
Dr. Mandel’s article claimed that F-15I Ra’am could theoretically undergo retrofitting to carry 30,000-pound bombs. While the bomb does fit size-wise, there are several engineering roadblocks. The Ra’am would need structural modifications as its payload is 23,000lb in at least three hardpoints. The fuel capacity would be reduced by two-thirds, as external fuel tanks would have to be omitted. Since the F-15I cannot reach Iran without aerial refueling, the vulnerable tanker would likely have to cross into Iranian airspace.
The recently introduced F-15IA has an increased payload of 29,500lb but is spread out throughout the airframe. Structural modifications and range and aerodynamic issues would be time-consuming. The center of mass would shift, adding a whole set of issues to be solved.
Why can’t the Israeli Air Force deliver 30,000-pound bombs
Israel lacks the methods of delivering a bomb larger than the 5,000lb GBU-28. The Air Force strike capabilities are centered around tactical multirole fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16, with no strategic bombers, such as the supersonic B-1B Lancer or the stealthy B-2 Spirit.
The reasoning behind such a procurement strategy was two-fold: Israel did not need the range of these aircraft (and associated weight and complexity), and purpose-built bombers lack air-to-air capabilities. The benefit of F-15s and F-16s is that after dropping their payload, they are nimble fighters, and they can also be used in air superiority configuration to escort a strike package into enemy territory.
The B-1B, B-2, and B-52 bombers are the only aircraft in the Western inventory with the capability to carry the 30,000lb GBU-57. Additionally, it can strike Iran without aerial refueling. They were designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses and go after hardened and mobile targets, such as road-based ballistic missiles – something Israel might eventually need to do against the Iranian regime.
What are the issues with obtaining US bombers?
The B-52 lacks either the supersonic speed of the B-1B or the low-observability of the B-2. The mothballed units would take a long time to get operational, although they could benefit from Israeli electronic warfare suites.
Training is an issue, as it would take months in the best case scenario to be flown by Israeli crews and potentially years to have the level of proficiency currently displayed by them.
Even if the US authorized such a sale, it would require congressional approval, instantly giving Iran the incentive to test its first nuclear device to alert Israel of the consequences of an attack, and at the same time, they would fit nuclear warheads on all their remaining ICBMs.
Dr. Mandel’s proposal of using C-130 Hercules cargo planes is unrealistic. While they have been used in Afghanistan, they are highly vulnerable aircraft. Short-range MANPADs can make short work of slow transports. Iran, like Vietnam or Yugoslavia, when facing US airpower, has aircraft and mobile SAM systems dispersed, making it almost impossible to destroy all of them. Furthermore, new guidance systems would have to be developed, increasing development time.
What are the alternatives?
Short of leasing an American strategic bomber and providing nationality to the pilots and maintenance crew (upwards of 120 hours of maintenance per flight hour), no option would be operationally ready within months if not years.
There is a new bunker buster bomb in the pipeline, which would use rocket boosters akin to WW2’s “Disney bomb”, and would be smaller for the new B-21 Raider and potentially the F-15IA/EX.
Another option could be to modify an existing Jericho ICBM. According to open sources, the Jericho III has a 2,500lb warhead. However, the missile itself weighs over 60,000lb and has a range of over 4,000 miles, so swapping fuel for warhead weight could be plausible, albeit with enormous engineering challenges. Data on Jericho IV is still classified.
Published in 11/12/2024 07h32
Original article: