| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran AF Practicing Long-Range Missions |
| 2007-02-15 |
| Israel could be a target of recently reported Iranian air force drills aimed at giving jets long-range attack capabilities, a security analyst told Ynetnews. At the same time, experts said they doubted Iran's air force was anywhere near a stage of development that could challenge Israel's Air Force. At the beginning of February, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that "Iranian pilots are stepping up training and exercises for long-range missions." Quoting "Western defense sources," the report said "Iran is pursuing a longer-range strike capability for its air assets to support the delivery of more powerful strategic weapon systems," adding that Tehran was "investing considerable resources" in aerial refueling capabilities. The training involved Iran Air Force's (IRIAF's) Sukhoi Su-24MK strike aircraft, Jane's Weekly said. The aerial refueling exercises, originating out of the Tactical Air Base 7 in Shiraz, southwest Iran, take place at night and involve planes flying at very low altitudes, the report continued. The exercises were aimed at simulating "operational scenarios that would entail night-time refueling of an Iranian attack aircraft, at low altitude over the Mediterranean, outward bound en route to the target," Jane's Weekly added. Dr. Ephraim Kam, who teaches securities studies at Tel Aviv University, and is Deputy Head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, confirmed that Iran possesses long-range warplanes. "They don't have many, but the Sukhoi Su-24 can also reach Israel. Iran also has a certain ability - though I'm not sure to what extent - to refuel in the air," Kam said. "They could be taking Israel into account during their training," Kam said, adding: "It's logical, because if Israel attacks, they would want to respond. If they reach a nuclear ability, they may also want to have the option of using planes to launch nuclear missiles, and not rely solely on the Shihab 3 missile. This can't be ruled out," Kam said. Kam added that Israel has been aware of Iran's air force capabilities for many years. "Against the Israeli Air Force, these planes are not very significant. They are not so developed in their long-range attack abilities. The Iranians are not sufficiently familiar with the Israel arena, and the Israeli Air Force (IAF) is much more developed. I assume Israel has answers to this," he said. Yizhak Shapir, an expert on Iran's military capabilities, also of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Ynetnews that Israel was not at the top of Iran's target list. "Strategically, Israel is in a fairly low place on the list of Iran's targets," he said, adding: "It's not in first place." "Ideologically, Israel is seen as an envoy of West. Strategically, they have many targets to look for, and they are looking to develop their air force capabilities," Shapir said. "After saying that, it's also important to say their air force is small and weak, and certainly not close to being able to deal with IAF. Their warplanes – the Sukhoi Su24, are from the 1980s. Their capabilities are from the last generation. They have a relatively small number of planes," Shapir noted. Professor Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, did not specifically comment on the report by Jane's, but did suggest that Israel was in first place in Iran's list of targets. He underlined in an email sections of a recent book he co-authored, titled What Makes Tehran Tick, which he said "provides our latest thinking on the Iranian missile threat and motivations of the regime." "Israel is the publicly-state destination of these missiles. Such targeting is not only declared in speeches of Iran's top leadership, but also inscribed on the fuselages of the missiles," the book passage said. "At the same time, Iran is developing ideas for deceptive weaponry, such as transferable warheads. Iran's ballistic missile development is racing ahead in much the same way as its uranium enrichment, formulating missiles that could be fitted with the nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons as well as the conventional warheads that most of them were designed to carry," the book added. Referring to Hizbullah's role in Iran's targeting of Israel, the passage continued: "Since the Shahab-3 was not used during the 2006 war in Lebanon, Iran may have been authorizing a closely-located third party to strike back strategically if the need arose, such as a response to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program." |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #7 that would help keep an aircraft obscured until it could close to under a hundred miles away. Then the aircraft carrier's first response might be to launch interceptors. But at the last minute, the Iranian aircraft launches its air-to-sea nuclear missile before swerving off. See that legend at the bottom of the map that shows where the 300 mile mark is? Good now add 200 miles to it, thats the effective combat radius of a Superhornet. Now look at how much range that covers in regards to the Gulf, then add in the carriers wont be operating usually less than 100 miles from any coast. Toss in ferry range and you can easily double the combat radius effectively meaning that a CBG will play merry hell with any air attack coming at it. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2007-02-15 23:08 |
| #6 LA class aren't called boomers. Ohios are boomers. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2007-02-15 23:03 |
| #5 I suggest that the Iranians check the open source documents on the powers of a carrier battle group's commander when attacked with nuclear weapons. Unless you get the carrier, all the missile-launching destroyers, and the Los Angeles class boomer with the same shot - a whole world of hurt is coming at you, express delivery. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-02-15 22:53 |
| #4 well, sure, they were official Ianian Air Force jets, carrying Iranian Air Force weapons, attacking our troops and ships, but how do we know they were authorized at the highest levels? We demand the President send a UN-sanctioned diplomatic team for talks before he acts to protect those troops and ships! We will schedule hearings in March |
| Posted by: Jack Murtha and Chris Dodd 2007-02-15 22:43 |
| #3 If they did attack a carrier group that way, it would be the last thing they did. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-02-15 22:06 |
| #2 Point (1) "Deceptive weaponry ...Missles which can be fitted with nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads" > Author is indir affirming that Iran does intend to dev WMDS = NuKlar weeepons; and (2) there are still Net reports that Iran did covertly purchase advanced SU-27 + MIG 31/33's variants? Also, WAFF.com > Iran General and Govt Officio claims that IRAN IS NOW 100% SELF-SUFFICIENT/INDEPENDENT in the all aspects of weapons dev and R&D. RADIO ISRAEL > IDF + MOSSAD sources > claim that current Iran talks = proposed agreements does little to prevent Iran from acquiring either Nuke materials andor Nuke devices from outside or third-party nations. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-15 22:03 |
| #1 Using low-flying aircraft to make a low approach towards most likely an aircraft carrier fleet is not such a bad idea. There is a thick range of low mountains next to the Persian Gulf (see map) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/mapImages/41dc58a8bf712.jpg that would help keep an aircraft obscured until it could close to under a hundred miles away. Then the aircraft carrier's first response might be to launch interceptors. But at the last minute, the Iranian aircraft launches its air-to-sea nuclear missile before swerving off. If the missile is a particularly fast one, bought from China, perhaps, it would close so rapidly that it would severely tax the resources of the fleet. I'm not saying it would work, only the numbers crunchers could tell you that. But it would have a much better chance than a ballistic missile. Now, if they used two missiles on two aircraft, the first being an EMP attack to open the door for the second one, now you're talking. But again, it's one for the number crunchers. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-02-15 21:15 |