[ARCHIVED THREAD] - IDF F-16I combat range? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:53:20 PM EDT
|
I have heard different rumored ranges ranging from 1300 Km to 2100 km. The training exercise that the IDF did last week was 1447 Km, one way. |
CFTs and 600 gallon externals are wonderful things. http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm |
|
2100 km according to www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/airf.pdf That's through Tel Aviv University, referenced by Globalsecurity.org. That puts most of Iran at least nominally 'in range'. 
|
|
Ok, that is what I thought. The question is, where is the IDF going to stash their refuelers then why the strike package is in the shit? The IDF could launch some standoff weapons to disable the runways of local AFBs in the region near Natanz, but what will the USN do when they see Shahab's 3 flying towards Iraq and Isreal? |
We should offer to refuel them over Iraq. For free. And maybe even let them land at our base for coffee and unleavened donuts. |
| Just a question. If the IDF does decide to strike IRAN. Would the US military allow them to use IRAQI airspace? I don't know where the targets are but it looks like the direct route to IRAN will be near Baghdad and there is no way for them to get those planes over there without us knowing. I'm sure we'll get all sorts of crap for letting them thru IRAQI airspace. |
Israel can not strike with aircraft without US approval. |
That does not seem like that will be hard to get if it has not been granted knowing that the DoD, CIA, NSA, and Bush gave the green light to kill the reactor construction in Syria last year. |
Or landing in India. No friend to the muslim world. 
|
|
If you knew your history, then you would know that the IDF told Boeing to fuck off on the continued purchase of F-15Is and instead placed an order for an extra 50 some F-16Is. Either way both will be going there with the 16s being the shortest wings in the group. The IDF just doesnt have the assets to do this with just F15Is. |
Indeed! Any strike plan has to take into account refueling and probably in Iranian territory... That's a dangerous proposition. I don't know squat about planning such a thing but just looking at the map... Doesn't look terribly plausible. I'd much sooner see sanctions and regime change ultimately work without anyone having to fire a shot... Whether that come to pass, I do not know... |
|
Syria has plausible deniability. Iran doesn't Refuel over Iraq and landing in Afganistan was what I was thinking. fly them out on C-17s to Turkey and then back to Israel. the real question is whether it would do anything other than strengthen the mullah's hold in the country. Its not like a reactor. Maybe a earth quake bomb to jar the cetrafuges (if they are running) and throwing them off their bearings causing them to shake apart? |
I see. But since US approval on an Iran strike will be more obvious than the Syria one, would Iran be justified in hitting back at the US and not just Israel? Not that it matters since we'll probably kick their asses anyway. I think the IDF is well justified to take out Iran if they feel that their state is threatened. Its just interesting to see how the US can get dragged into this even though we are not the ones doing the bombing. Might as well do the job ourselves just to make sure it is done right since they're going to strike back at us anyway. |
|
Its interesting to see the US aspect of owning Iraq and A-stan coming into play, a thought that 5 years ago was impossible to think of for the IDF. I say just let them take off from Iraq, as soon as the mud flys, its coming back to us anyways, so might as well not limit them. |
Very interesting the the C-17 idea. I would think a 10 psi over pressure in a bunker times 24 times would be enough to dislodge anything of importance if you know what i mean. Remember the BLU-113/B is a 5000 lb bunker buster, and the IDF has aquired them in numbers. |
Precisely my point. They're going to scream at us anyway for letting them refuel over Iraq. Might as well get the most out of all the aggravation coming our way. BTW: and pass some popcorn to the troops for the impending fireworks. |
Vito, say the US DoD tells the IDF to bugger off, so how could the IDF get the tankers into the area without pissing off the arabs and forcing them to get shot down prior to the strike package kicking up dust over the Sauds and Jordanians? |
YUP  |
The only doable taker option that does not require overflight is to send them down the Red Sea to refuel the strike as it heads 'the long way home' round Arabian Peninsula and up the Red Sea. Very long range mission for all concerned but has tactical advantages… no return flight over hostile turf and an option for covert US tanker missions out of Diego Garcia to rendezvous with the homeward bound strike off Oman |
Huh, I never thought of this scenario. That would make for a legendary operation if they somehow pulled it off. |
That actually is very realistic considering they have done that before, and the US did it in 1980s with the the failed SEAL mission. |
A 100+ plane strike will need extra tankers, the IDF's assets just can't do it. Diego Garcia is a totally closed Island, anything can happen there with 100% security and assured deniablity. |
Oh, I agree, but if we actively help the israelis with an air strike by refueling them we might as well take part in the actual bombing. |
My thought would they would pull a sneak pass. Paint them like US aircraft, use US call signs, US flight patterns, and they could possibleget away with it. But the rest of the world would say we did it, and we would have no idea what happened. The Izzies did fund the rebuilding of an airfield in northern Iraq though. |
They would have to spray paint a gigantic "OWNED" sign on the runway using a Star of David for the "O". 
|
I can see the photoshopped pcitures now: "Wer in ur airfields, stealing ur fuelz and exploding ur nukez." |
Interesting... didn't know that... I'm sure the Kurds are more sympathetic here too since they don't exactly appreciate the Iranian treatment of Kurds... ntl... paying for an airport doesn't mean they can use it without US and Iraqi approval. |