close
close

first Drop

Com TW NOw News 2024

    • news

    Israel cannot arm itself in time with 30,000 pound bombs against Iran

    Vaseline Posted on

    Last week Dr. Eric R. Mandel makes a convincing argument for deterring the Iranian regime by using the largest bunker busters. While I completely agree with him, from a technical point of view I disagree with the delivery methods. This is an important debate because Dr. Mandel must lobby for the most effective weapons that can be operational quickly.

    Why is the 30,000 pound GBU-57 bomb important?

    The GBU-57 would, in the words of Dr. Mandel, “slow down their nuclear program, prevent a retaliatory ballistic missile attack on Israel and de-escalate the conflict.” If Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, “Iran may be much more hesitant to respond to the Israeli attack on Iranian territory or to arm and complete a functioning nuclear bomb.”

    The article by Dr. Mandel claimed that the F-15I Ra’am could theoretically be adapted to carry 30,000-pound bombs. While the bomb fits the bill size-wise, there are several technical roadblocks. The Ra’am would require structural modifications as its payload is 23,000 pounds in at least three difficulty points. Fuel capacity would be reduced by two-thirds as external fuel tanks would have to be eliminated. Since the F-15I cannot reach Iran without aerial refueling, the vulnerable tanker would likely have to enter Iranian airspace.

    The recently introduced F-15IA has an increased payload of 29,500 pounds, but is spread across the airframe. Structural adjustments, range and aerodynamic issues would be time consuming. The center of mass would shift, creating a whole host of problems that needed to be solved.

    Crews work on an Israeli Air Force F-15 Eagle in a hangar, reportedly on an intercept mission of an Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel, in this handout image released April 14, 2024. (credit: Israel Defense Forces/Hand- out via REUTERS)

    Why can’t the Israeli Air Force deliver 30,000 pound bombs?

    Israel does not have the methods to deliver a bomb larger than the 5,000-pound GBU-28. The Air Force’s strike capabilities are centered around tactical multirole fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16, without strategic bombers, such as the supersonic B-1B Lancer or the stealthy B-2 Spirit.

    The reasoning behind such a procurement strategy was twofold: Israel did not need the range of these aircraft (and their associated weight and complexity), and purpose-built bombers lack air-to-air capabilities. The advantage of F-15s and F-16s is that, once they drop their payload, they are agile 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 ability to carry the 30,000-pound GBU-57. Moreover, it can attack Iran without aerial refueling. They were designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses and go after hard and mobile targets, such as road-based ballistic missiles – something Israel might eventually have to do against the Iranian regime.

    What are the problems in obtaining American bombers?

    The B-52 lacks the supersonic speed of the B-1B or the low observability of the B-2. It would take a long time for the mothballed units to become operational, although they could benefit from Israeli electronic warfare suites.

    Stay up to date with the latest news!

    Subscribe to the Jerusalem Post newsletter

    Training is an issue because it would take, at best, months for Israeli crews to fly and possibly years for them to reach the level of proficiency they currently exhibit.

    Even if the US were to approve such a sale, it would require congressional approval, which would give Iran an immediate incentive to test its first nuclear device to warn Israel of the consequences of an attack, while at the same time putting nuclear warheads on place all their weapons. remaining ICBMs.

    Dr.’s proposal Mandel to use C-130 Hercules cargo planes is unrealistic. Although they have been used in Afghanistan, they are very vulnerable aircraft. Short-range MANPADs can make short work of slow transports. Iran, like Vietnam or Yugoslavia, when confronted by the US air force, has spread aircraft and mobile SAM systems, making it almost impossible to destroy them all. In addition, new guidance systems would have to be developed, increasing development time.

    What are the alternatives?

    Short of leasing a US strategic bomber and providing nationality to the pilots and maintenance personnel (more than 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 similar to the WWII “Disney bomb” and would be smaller for the new B-21 Raider and possibly the F-15IA/EX.

    Another option could be to modify an existing Jericho ICBM. According to open sources, the Jericho III has a 2,500-pound warhead. However, the missile itself weighs more than 60,000 pounds and has a range of more than 6,000 miles, so trading fuel for the weight of the warhead could be plausible, albeit with enormous technical challenges. Details about Jericho IV are still classified.

    The writer is an MA thesis researcher/student in the field of National Security and Holocaust Studies at the University of Haifa. He specialized in modern warfare, with an emphasis on air power and logistics.



    Vaseline
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like