Article

2007-09-13 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

U.S. develops 14-ton super bomb, bigger than Russian vacuum bomb

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Gleck Unavising7367 2007-09-13 11:17|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Russia, we will see your large fire ball and raise you a super penetrator that can hit all of your underground bunkers.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-09-13 12:16|| 2007-09-13 12:16|| Front Page Top

#2 On Tuesday, the Fox News television channel said: "A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime.".

Commenting on the report, McInerney said: "Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ... They've forced us into the military option."

McInerney described some possible military campaign scenarios and said: "The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign," he continued.

He said that bombing would be launched by 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types.

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their [Iranian] nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control.

And then let the Iranian people take their country back," the general said describing the campaign, adding it would be "easy."

Damn, even if this is all Bull-Pucky from Russia with Love, it will TWIST the Dinnerjackets Tail.

HARD!

~:)

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-09-13 12:25|| 2007-09-13 12:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Big non-nuclear mutha! Penetrator to be used against hardened facilities.

Time to slap Iran for all their mideast meddling. These jerkoffs are keeping things stirred up in the ME for a long time. They have been an unaddressed problem since 1979. They are causing problems in Lebanon, Paleoland, Iraq and other places. They continue to engage in delusional hegemony.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-09-13 12:28|| 2007-09-13 12:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Oooh ... serious diss with sexual undertones

some of us have to be serious and pay attention to mental hygine!

Harumph! ~:)

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-09-13 12:28|| 2007-09-13 12:28|| Front Page Top

#5 After reading that my pants got tight.

Posted by jds 2007-09-13 13:31|| 2007-09-13 13:31|| Front Page Top

#6 All I saw were vacuum and massive penetrator.

Does this have anything to do with those topless putin photos going around? yech!

Posted by flash91 2007-09-13 13:37|| 2007-09-13 13:37|| Front Page Top

#7 There've been a swarm of small earthquakes in California lately. I wonder if that's because of somthing they've been testing in Nevada? Plus I hear that Iranian buildings don't hold up well in earthquakes. :)

Posted by treo 2007-09-13 13:43|| 2007-09-13 13:43|| Front Page Top

#8 Dammit, would somebody please tell these gentlemen that what they propose is not enough?

1) Iran may have long ago obtained weapons grade material from North Korea, so they only have to assemble bombs, far away from where we are targeting.

2) Iran can easily blockade the Persian Gulf and hazard shipping in the Arabian Sea, as long as they can get within 50-100 miles to it. They also are within easy striking distance of the Saudi oilfields.

3) Once hostilities have begun, the Iranian Corps on the Iraqi border will be free to invade Iraq. The Iranians will have no problem inviting anyone and everyone into an escalating war.

We can assume that they will be able to launch at least some missiles towards US fleets in the region, US bases, Israel, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, maybe Europe, and who knows where else.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-13 13:59|| 2007-09-13 13:59|| Front Page Top

#9 I think Gen. McInerney has the right idea, but left out a few things:

1) 2000-3000 sorties by Navy air and Air Force Tac Air.
2) Initial assault by 200-300 Tomahawk missiles on RADAR sites and air defense facilities.
3) Marine Expeditionary Force to take Khark Island (and we're NOT giving it back).
4) Arms drop to Kurds in northern Iran.
5) Ship-to-shore missile attacks all along the Persian Gulf coast.
6) Nothing left of Bandar Abbas and Bushehr but dust and rubble.
7) Anti-ship, anti-sub, minesweeping operations from Straits of Oman to Umm Qasr.
8) Total destruction of all Iranian military sites, especially anything to do with the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
9) Saturation leaflet drop with the message "Behave, or we'll REALLY get angry".

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-09-13 14:00|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-09-13 14:00|| Front Page Top

#10 ignoring the 'penetrator' and yesterday's cemmont about iran being 'impotent' i have to ask about the 65-70 stealth bombers; last i knew there were only 21 B-2s and 59 F-117s and they are classed as fighters. that makes a grand total of 80, and there have been at least 2 F-117 losses ( Bosnia and the airshow crash), plus figure some down for overhaul or other scheduled maintenance. so either that is some bragging or we are about to unveail the new cloaked super duper dark hornet.....
just askin, is all.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-09-13 14:06|| 2007-09-13 14:06|| Front Page Top

#11 It's all under control.

Posted by Area 51 2007-09-13 14:21|| 2007-09-13 14:21|| Front Page Top

#12 I can't believe it would be easy but I still say it needs doing.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-09-13 14:30|| 2007-09-13 14:30|| Front Page Top

#13 USN Ret, could he be thinking F-22 also?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-09-13 14:33|| 2007-09-13 14:33|| Front Page Top

#14 He said that bombing would be launched by 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types

Yeesh! Probably pie in the sky, but if true just be careful not to drop the bombs out of one plane and onto the back of another! :-)

As for the Iranians along the border, perhaps that is why we are training up the IA to such a degree. After that, AlQ would dry up and they wouldn't need such a huge army anyway.

Posted by gorb 2007-09-13 14:52|| 2007-09-13 14:52|| Front Page Top

#15 Bomb them now while Matt Lauer is there!

Posted by Captain Lewis 2007-09-13 14:53|| 2007-09-13 14:53|| Front Page Top

#16 Captain Lewis, are advocating giving Matt Lauer a Bernard Shaw moment?

Posted by RWV 2007-09-13 15:06|| 2007-09-13 15:06|| Front Page Top

#17 "officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer,"

Why then? Not being funny, just wondering, do we need the time to build up? Does it have something to do with where we will have the Iraq soldiers and where our guys will be?

Just wondering, what is the thinking to somewhat announce when it will happen. And I know that will be in the middle of the campaign season!

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2007-09-13 15:18|| 2007-09-13 15:18|| Front Page Top

#18 1) Iran may have long ago obtained weapons grade material from North Korea, so they only have to assemble bombs, far away from where we are targeting.

'moose, I've tried to address this over at the "US may attack, but will Iran fight back (for more than an hour)?" thread. I'd really enjoy your insights.

One question. Have there been any difficult to explain low-yield underground nuclear explosions in proxy countries like China whereby Iran might have been able to do some functional testing? North Korea proved how vital it is to have a reliable and physically verified design.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-13 15:19|| 2007-09-13 15:19|| Front Page Top

#19 I still say the recent excursion by IAF deep into Syria was 1) a legitimate response to their testing Russian ADS, 2) show penetration of said system under testing and 3) showing the USA that since Iran is participating in the same system, it can be done - penetration and massive bombing. Go Air Force.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2007-09-13 15:27|| 2007-09-13 15:27|| Front Page Top

#20 The actual bomb contains the re-make of Barbarella, starring Britney Spears and featuring music from her new album. Co-starring Madonna as The Great Tyrant, and featuring music from her new album.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0958825/

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-13 16:03|| 2007-09-13 16:03|| Front Page Top

#21 McInerney described

If I were him, I'd paint a detailed scenario that would be as far remote from reality as possible, the time frame of commencing inclusive.

[wink]

In fact, I would prepare a series of "above top secret" documents with a lot of details and made sure that they are rather tempting to be "leaked" to he MSM outlets as NYT, a short time before the actual action.

Three flies by one swoosh:
The leaker will get his chance in court (treason)
The same applies to NYT (treason)
The Iranians would start feverishly implementing defences based on the published scenario right before we hit.

[actually, I would go a somewhat different way about it, which I'd rather not publicize]

Posted by twobyfour 2007-09-13 16:06|| 2007-09-13 16:06|| Front Page Top

#22 MIKE: I have no idea what the good LTGEN is thinking, but the F-22 is not a stealth bomber, but it does have some stealth characteristics; but again, the 'F' indicates a fighter, not a bomber (personal opinion follows) but the ascot boys do not think of the bomb trucks as sexy, like the fighters, so they tend to name all their toys 'F'-XX.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-09-13 16:16|| 2007-09-13 16:16|| Front Page Top

#23 #16 RWV: I wasn't advocating the death of Matt -- just want me some Shock and Awe®. But I was upset to see Today in Tehran this morning. My guess is they're trying to erode public support for any eventual action against Iran. (aside: I met Bernard Shaw's daugher a few times and she is delightful)

Posted by Captain Lewis 2007-09-13 16:17|| 2007-09-13 16:17|| Front Page Top

#24 What's the status of the F35. It, too, is stealthy, but a "strike fighter". The plan is to send into tough IAD environment with weapons in the internal bays, thus remaining stealthy. Once the IAD is degraded, it will be coming in with lots more ordnance loaded (which means less stealth). If it's active, it might be counted among the stealth bombers.

Posted by Richard Aubrey">Richard Aubrey 2007-09-13 16:46|| 2007-09-13 16:46|| Front Page Top

#25 Yes, our bomb will be bigger than Swept Away, Waterworld and Jersey Girl, combined. The only thing that comes close is Britney Spears' performance at the VMA's - which we are thinking of deploying as well.

Posted by General McInerney 2007-09-13 18:14|| 2007-09-13 18:14|| Front Page Top

#26

OBJECTS IN THIS MIRROR
ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

Posted by BigEd 2007-09-13 18:49|| 2007-09-13 18:49|| Front Page Top

#27 but again, the 'F' indicates a fighter, not a bomber

True, but most fighters have a capability to carry at least a small bomb load these days:

In 1994, the USAF asked Lockheed Martin to develop an air to surface capability for the F-22. Provisions were later made to the lower weapons bays to accommodate one 1,000 pound GBU-30/32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) per side.

They just retired the F-117, and this is why. The 117 could also only carry 2 bombs, with much shorter legs at slower speeds. Also had no self-defense capability.

A simple GPS (Global Positioning System)/inertial system will guide the weapon to its target. Eventually later versions will have increased precision attack capability by including a programmable radar seeker. The F-22's air-to-surface operations will be carried out courtesy of its onboard synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode.

In addition to the F-22's internal weapons bays, it will also be capable of carrying stores externally. Four underwing stations will be able to support up to 5,000 pounds. Underwing stores will be fitted to the F-22 when stealth is not critical. External drop tanks up to 600 US gallons can also be fitted onto the stations. This will increase the F-22's endurance and range significantly.

F-35 is only flying tests, still no production models. They just delivered the 100th F-22.

Posted by Steve 2007-09-13 19:27|| 2007-09-13 19:27|| Front Page Top

#28 Gorb,

That's how they think Glenn Miller's plane was lost.

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2007-09-13 19:27|| 2007-09-13 19:27|| Front Page Top

#29 'Moose, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. But you are right, that would have more megatonnage than even "Gigli".

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2007-09-13 19:37|| 2007-09-13 19:37|| Front Page Top

#30 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types.

I demand that we refurbish our Spruce Goose.

It will add one mo' bomber to our fleet, and it is a kool Woody that will begat mo' Dedly Wood.

Wood is not wholly Stealthy until it hits you upside the Head, Then its just like a Louisville Slugger, Pure Everlasting Furtive-Slinky until you are Ded!

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-09-13 19:38|| 2007-09-13 19:38|| Front Page Top

#31 SW: "Gobble gobble!"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-13 20:38|| 2007-09-13 20:38|| Front Page Top

#32 SB, not SW....jeebus...doesn't this keyboard know anything?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-13 20:39|| 2007-09-13 20:39|| Front Page Top

#33 "Then let the Iranian people take their country back" > True enuff - unfortunately IMO the asymmetric warfare-, mutual destruction-, and foreign interventionism-happy, etc. Spetzlamies desire a full-scale US or US-Allied invasion and occupation. *RADICAL MULLAHS > MUTUAL DESTRUCTION + "GREAT POWER(S)" MIL CONFRONTATION, etc. anarchies is to Islam's = Islamism's advantage. As for the USA being "forced into the military option", given US history a stronger incident(s) will be needed. In any case, Dubya has said that he as POTUS will NOT allow Radical Iran to have or dev nuclear weapons before he leaves office come Jan 2009 - SHOWS AGAIN THE 2008 ELEX MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT POTUS ELEX IN ALL US-WORLD HISTORY.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-09-13 21:06|| 2007-09-13 21:06|| Front Page Top

#34 They would be better off using F-15Es if you wanted tons o' bombs rather than the F-22. Heck, for that matter ( I am so going to hate myself in the morning for saying this) you could even enlist some of the Super Hornets and pull the drop tanks off and that opens up, i believe a total of 9 underwing stations for bombs and still leaves the wing tips for missles. and i know that there was some RCS reduction work done on the early model hornets during the early 90's so it is a safe bet that some of the lessons learned were transferred to the e and f models. but like was stated earlier, the underwing ordnance greatly increase radar return. so maybe the better plan is to send in stealth for the first wave and take out any sam sites and then follow with an aluminum overcast of BUFFS....

Posted by USN, ret. 2007-09-13 21:47|| 2007-09-13 21:47|| Front Page Top

#35 We'll do our part to elect a president who understands, JosephM. Quite a number of Rantburgers live in Ohio, which was an important state last time.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-13 22:33|| 2007-09-13 22:33|| Front Page Top

23:49 Old Patriot
23:48 Swamp Blondie
23:47 Gomez Criter3762
23:39 Mike
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:25 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 Red Dawg
23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 Zenster
22:57 Zenster
22:45 Procopius2k
22:43 trailing wife
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:40 Zenster
22:35 N Guard
22:33 trailing wife
22:29 phil_b
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:04 Zenster
21:56 Gary and the Samoyeds