Israel has plan to attack Iran nuclear plants with low velocity nuclear bombs

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Lockheed F-16 has a range of 3200+ miles. The Israeli F-16I 'Fighting Falcon' has modified internal fuel tanks that they claim are 50 % larger, plus 600 gallon wing tanks.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Lockheed F-16 has a range of 3200+ miles. The Israeli F-16I 'Fighting Falcon' has ...

The F-16I has an unrefueled combat strike radius well in excess of 500 miles.

Without arms, the plane may do 800 miles. To find military aircraft that go thousands of miles, they are slow and optimized for efficiency - bombers and transport aircraft.

To attack Iran, Israel must have complete cooperation of the US or must launch attacks through nations that are not so friendly to Israel. The exception: Turkey. But would Turkey cooperate with israel to attack Iran? Again, that very first post means immediatley consulting maps. Do you think for one minute such an attack would not have severe nuclear consequences for the entire region? Well, neocons would deny it using 'political agenda' justification - ie Cheney, George Jr, and Urbane Guerrilla.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
The Lockheed F-16 has a range of 3200+ miles. The Israeli F-16I 'Fighting Falcon' has ...

Quote:
The F-16I has an unrefueled combat strike radius well in excess of 500 miles.

Without arms, the plane may do 800 miles. To find military aircraft that go thousands of miles, they are slow and optimized for efficiency - bombers and transport aircraft.

To attack Iran, Israel must have complete cooperation of the US or must launch attacks through nations that are not so friendly to Israel. The exception: Turkey. But would Turkey cooperate with israel to attack Iran? Again, that very first post means immediatley consulting maps. Do you think for one minute such an attack would not have severe nuclear consequences for the entire region? Well, neocons would deny it using 'political agenda' justification - ie Cheney, George Jr, and Urbane Guerrilla.

That second "quote" you put up, is the first sentence from a two sentence paragraph. The second sentence is; "The extended flight range enables the IAF to attack targets well within Iran and Libya without having to refuel."
This is because they modified the internal tanks and added wing tanks. which you left out, when you quoted me. Bad tw.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That second "quote" you put up, is the first sentence from a two sentence paragraph. The second sentence is; "The extended flight range enables the IAF to attack targets well within Iran and Libya without having to refuel."

How? Libya is trivial and easy. Only ocean. But will Israeli fighters fly over Syria and across the entire of Iraq without anyone asking questions? Of course not. Also your numbers assume not carrying massive bombs required to bust bunkers. Will they fly across Saudi Arabia and not be challenged? Your quote makes those assumptions. This is not buzzing Assad’s Palace. Flight parameters must be completely different. Other nations must permit that flight path. Again, did you first look at maps? Your quote assumes great circle routes.

Yes, Israel might do as you have assumed if other nations are complicit. Add those fuel tanks and the plane cannot carry so many munitions. What is 600 gallons? 5000 more pounds? What is left to carry a bomb? Yes I read the entire paragraph and did these calculations. Did you?

It will take more than balls. Such an attack requires other nations to be complicit. You tell me that makes the region safer especially when it involves nuclear weapons? And then what happens in the Straits of Hormuz?

I am not saying it cannot be done. Obviously. However the consequences of such 'big dic' actions then should be massive civilian deaths – the only way to restore any sanity and to not provide Americans religious anti-American extremists with what they want – Armageddon. This is not some trivial attack on Saddam's nuclear reactor (which I always wondered was performed with French complicity). This is something far more severe that has nothing but bad consequences for American soldiers and for American citizens elsewhere in the world. Are you ready to die for Israeli 'big dics'?

Really the question we should be asking is why was this leaked? A mission so unlikely and then leaked? I am looking for a bigger agenda here. For example, is this really an American ploy to blame others for an American stealth attack? Does Turkey really so fear a nuclear Iran (since Turkey has already declared a nuclear Iran means they must go nuclear). I don't buy this Israeli attack at face value. The mission is just too unlikely. But such leaks can have alternative agendas. What are they? Were you asking this question with Cyclefrance's first post? I was - and other questions.

Airframe numbers, national boundaries, and political interests just don't make sense for the story as leaked. There must be much more here because success of that attack is just too improbable and risks excessive.

Could Israel pulled it off? Maybe if Israel was not so busy making enemies everywhere. Just another lesson for the Americans reading this.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

How? Libya is trivial and easy. Only ocean. But will Israeli fighters fly over Syria and across the entire of Iraq without anyone asking questions? Of course not. Also your numbers assume not carrying massive bombs required to bust bunkers. Will they fly across Saudi Arabia and not be challenged? Your quote makes those assumptions. This is not buzzing Assad’s Palace. Flight parameters must be completely different. Other nations must permit that flight path. Again, did you first look at maps? Your quote assumes great circle routes.

So you expect me to believe that if Israel was attacking Iran with nuclear weapons they would be concerned with air space protocol of their enemies? Grow up.

Yes, Israel might do as you have assumed if other nations are complicit. Add those fuel tanks and the plane cannot carry so many munitions. What is 600 gallons? 5000 more pounds? What is left to carry a bomb? Yes I read the entire paragraph and did these calculations. Did you?

Did your calculations include the 50 % larger internal tanks and 600 gallon wing tanks along with larger engines and more payload, that ALL F-16Is have ,ALL the time. This ain't your daddy's F-16.

It will take more than balls. Such an attack requires other nations to be complicit.

No it doesn't, they can do it all by their lonesome. The only question, if the story is true, is would they.