Article

2006-04-05 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Two B-2s could take out Irans nuclear assets

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 Fred 2006-04-05 00:03|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Arnaud spends most of his time practicing being amused in a mirror and the echo chamber of his chosen ilk, instead of understanding the ramifications, the weapons, or the inconvenient facts that elude his chattering class.

Posted by Creans Chomogum3852 2006-04-05 00:25|| 2006-04-05 00:25|| Front Page Top

#2 DeBor has a neocon fetish.

Posted by Captain America 2006-04-05 01:15|| 2006-04-05 01:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Don't forget the Iranians have said they have no qualms resorting to launching or suppor new terror attacks against the USA, or Amer interests wherever in the world the same may be, in retaliation for any US attack or invasion of Iran, more popularly known as VOTE FOR HILLARY, for that kinder, anti-arrogant, anti-Fascist, Motherly Amer Holocaust, Socialism and future OWG.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-04-05 01:20|| 2006-04-05 01:20|| Front Page Top

#4 De Borchgrave: If, as Bush has indicated, US troops were still in Iraq in 2009 under the next president, Tehran, in retaliatory animus, would pull out all the stops to ensure a Vietnam-like send-off for remaining US forces in Iraq.

What Vietnam-like sendoff? We withdrew after beating the shit out of the North Vietnamese Army. They were done. Unfortunately, we also cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese even as the Soviets ramped up their shipments of Migs, tanks and artillery to North Vietnam - which the North Vietnamese used to rebuild. And that is what they used to overrun South Vietnam three years after we got out.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-04-05 01:25|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-04-05 01:25|| Front Page Top

#5 De Borchgrave: "The perceived American indifference over the loss of Arab lives would now be seen as spreading to another Muslim country"

Last time I checked the Arabs and Persians did not like it when you confused them with eachother.

That "2 B-2" story has been repeated a few times. Hopefully it is true. However, it is unfair to claim the administration is unaware of the downsides of strikes, even successful ones. These include yet more Iranian backed terror, collateral damage, alienation of an Iranian populace that might otherwise like us and the potential for them to make a move on the Straits.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-05 02:01|| 2006-04-05 02:01|| Front Page Top

#6 de dum Borchgrave Two B-2s could take out Irans nuclear assets

yep, The B-2 uses the new J-DAMNABLES, every Persian Pony and pistachio nut will reap the Whirly Dervishes.

Posted by RD 2006-04-05 02:36|| 2006-04-05 02:36|| Front Page Top

#7 so what I'm reading in this is..... we can take out Iran's nuclear facilities with only 2 B2's, blah, blah, neocon, blah, blah, George Bush is willing to do it.

This whole war reminds me of that scene from Indiana Jones with the fancy sword fighter.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-05 03:54|| 2006-04-05 03:54|| Front Page Top

#8 I wonder if this is yet more "preparing the ground" by the liberal media so that if the war doesn't turn out to be easy they can trot this thing out and say "those darn neocons were arrogant and lied to us again..."

Posted by Phil 2006-04-05 09:06|| 2006-04-05 09:06|| Front Page Top

#9 they'd say that anyway even if we took out there goverment within 3 weeks with only 100 odd loses, sound familier?

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-05 09:39|| 2006-04-05 09:39|| Front Page Top

#10 2 would be fine, if everything went well, if all bombs hit targets, if one didn't develop engine problems, etc.

That is why the Air Force would send in at least 6. 3 per target. Just in case.

Normal targets in bombing operations are targeted by 2 bombs. Lead plane primary is second plane secondary and visa versa.

In a high risk operation with standoff weapons, at least 3 per target is nessisary for the target to be considered "destroyed" since dodging flak, missiles and radar makes it slightly difficult to aim, even with a JDAM.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-04-05 09:49|| 2006-04-05 09:49|| Front Page Top

#11 I hope that this is just his imitation of a useful idiot.

Posted by Perfesser 2006-04-05 10:00|| 2006-04-05 10:00|| Front Page Top

#12 don't worry about dodging flak at 60 odd thousand feet, remember the B-2 goes very high, way way higer them most anti aircraft missles in fact - but you have to not only see it you have to track it - tracking it to get a firing solution is the near impossible part.Rumours also the B2 has a system of counter measures that spoof radar by sending back a signal thats out of phase or something - but essentially it means if a radar did spot it - the B2 knows its been spotted within a fraction of a second it confuses the enemy radar set by 'Active cancellation' (think thats what is called) interestingly the Fwench are supposesed to have incorperated a working active cancellation system for thier Rafale aircraft. Really though the B2s launch phase is the bad bit - i mean you take off from Whiteman and i bet you some Iranian agent will be straight on the blower to the Iranian's. Need to lift off from Deigo Garcia or somewhere like that so as to not give the signal that there. I think the 20 odd B-2s that are operational would be able to provide us with a very good operational tempo for the first week before bringing in the B1's and standoff strikes from B-52's. But as for the B-2 i don't think they have a hope in hell of seeing let alone shooting one down, I think the B-2 can also take around 180+ SDB's also thats perfect for striking defenses around these nuke plants - i dont care how many AA systems they have they ain't gonna stop a massed attack using all those SDB's or alternitvly load up the B-2 with 80 500lb jdams and watch a whole complex go boom in the space of a minuite. B-1 could be the significant player though also, much under rated i think and even in a high threat enviorment a very good bomber - far better then B-52 which is just a flying truck really. Gonna be very interesting for the planners out there working out any air tasking order thats for sure.

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-05 11:02|| 2006-04-05 11:02|| Front Page Top

#13 'Also it is believed that the Northrop Grumman ZSR-63 defensive aids equipment installed on B-2 bombers may be using active cancellation' found by a quick google search about active cancellation, ruskies too may have got this working too for thier latest future fighter jet apparently.

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-05 11:04|| 2006-04-05 11:04|| Front Page Top

#14 B-2s would only be used for deep strike. There are many other vehicles to deal with targets on the periphery.

Posted by RWV 2006-04-05 12:07|| 2006-04-05 12:07|| Front Page Top

#15 more popularly known as VOTE FOR HILLARY, for that kinder, anti-arrogant, anti-Fascist, Motherly Amer Holocaust, Socialism and future OWG.

AI or not, I'm with Joe on this one.

Posted by Secret Master 2006-04-05 12:11|| 2006-04-05 12:11|| Front Page Top

#16 Phase 1 - Take out every naval and airforce asset in Iran that we can hit. Also use massive bombardment to destroy any road or railway that connects the hump of Iran with the Shia Arab/Kurd/ and Baluchi regions (which would basically mean they may have to fight to get to their own borders). Also hit any nuclear asset we can with minimal casualties.

Phase 2 - Use propoganda and diplomacy as we hope for an uprising and for assets to become visible.

Phase 3 - Repeat as necessary with targets getting increasingly riskier regarding civilian casualties.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-04-05 12:34|| 2006-04-05 12:34|| Front Page Top

#17 Just what we need. another "SHOCK & AWE ATTACK"
We saw how well that workded didnt we?

Posted by Angolusing Omert2083 2006-04-05 13:00|| 2006-04-05 13:00|| Front Page Top

#18 Shock and awe was a resounding success (pun intended), or at least, around here it was.

Posted by Slaise Angitch9964 2006-04-05 13:09|| 2006-04-05 13:09|| Front Page Top

#19 indeed shock and awe did work fantastically, anyone who thinks otherwise shouyld go read up the history books and see that what was accomplished was something that no other war has every accomplished so quickly by any measure of historical standards. 3 fckin weeks to anhilate a military, move your forces into the neemys capital city and remove its Dictator and his Baathist cronies. Name me another conflict as successful and i'll give you a tenner. I challenge you to find me a defeat as swift and total as that my leftie friend :)

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-05 13:52|| 2006-04-05 13:52|| Front Page Top

#20 Afghanistan.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-05 14:06|| 2006-04-05 14:06|| Front Page Top

#21 lol ok you win - which just further proves my point i guess - Russia fought in vain for a years and all they got was badly bruised and beaten from it, it serves to show just how good coalition forces are i guess :)

Posted by ShepUK 2006-04-05 15:57|| 2006-04-05 15:57|| Front Page Top

#22 Prove it!

Posted by DMFD 2006-04-05 20:05|| 2006-04-05 20:05|| Front Page Top

00:01 ex-lib
23:58 FOTSGreg
23:46 FeralCat
23:33 11A5S
23:32 SteveS
23:13 Old Patriot
23:10 GradStudent06
23:03 Captain America
22:59 SPoD
22:58 Frank G
22:51 Captain America
22:45 Frank G
22:32 newc
22:20 tibor742
22:20 trailing wife
22:19 plainslow
22:11 xbalanke
22:10 phil_b
22:08 Robert Crawford
22:05 trailing wife
22:03 Juck Sleath3598
22:01 Alaska Paul
21:51 lotp
21:50 Robert Crawford