So many things to address in your analysis that I can't ft them all here. But mostly I do want to emphasize your point that Israel generally only reveals what it has when they approve export sales. So, we know little about the weapons they've developed specifically for dealing with Iran.
The recent revelation of the Air LORA is enlightening. Now you have an aeroballistic missile with a range of somewhere between 400 and 1000km. And a 570kg warhead one version of which is a high-speed penetrator. It very likely far exceeds JASSM or cruise missiles for penetration (due to kinetic energy). I can imagine it equaling or exceeding a BLU-109. But still not enough for what we assume the protection level is on Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure. They also have Rampage and Rocks aeroballistic missiles. The main point here is really that, excluding the nuclear weapons infrastructure penetration issue, they can reduce their need for tanker support considerably using these. And they probably have identified points in the nuclear weapons infrastructure that Air LORA can hold at risk.
Assumptions about Israeli cruise missiles are also fraught with the ASSuMe problem. All the data we have on Israeli air-launched cruise missiles is decades old. If they've deployed a 1500km range one on their submarines for nuclear strike, they could very well have an air-launched conventionally armed version with similar range.
Some time ago the IDF made a cryptic announcement about having extended the range of the F-35I. I don't know if you mentioned this or included some guesstimate in your spreadsheet. If you did, sorry I missed it. Drop tanks, conformal fuel tanks, or (apparently) genies for propulsion are in the mix.
On the bomb front they have the GBU-28, and had requested the GBU-72, though I doubt they have the later), for striking deeply buried Iranian targets. You aren't delivering 5000lb bombs with an F-35. Some version(s) of the plan have always included the F-15I.
They also have their own MPR-2000 penetrator, which is somewhere between the BLU-116 and BLU-137 in penetration. It is externally MK84 and JDAM kit-compatible, and there is some inference that it has been integrated for internal carry on the F-35I.
Israel SEAD doctrine is heavily drone-based and was the driving force in creation of suicide drones, specifically the IAI Harpy anti-radiation drone. I doubt they've ignored the need to counter Iranian air defenses.
We assume that the Jericho 2/3 (3A, 4?) missiles are all nuclear armed, which of course is because we assume Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. But there is that assume word again. Do we misread Israel's longstanding preference for using crewed fighters as being sufficiently arrogant that they wouldn't have developed and procured conventionally armed medium to intermediate range ballistic missiles to help with striking Iran? A 1000kg (Jericho 2) to 1300kg (Jericho 3) penetrator delivered at hypersonic speeds is a real possibility. And no refueling problem!
The list would kind of go on and on, with the bottom line being that we have no fucking idea what the Israelis have developed for dealing with Iran. All we know is they've been hyper focused on the problem of striking Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure for at least a couple of decades. We are likely in for some real surprises, as are the Iranians.
Yes the US Air Force went with the flying boom because of refueling bombers but not because of the nimbleness of the receiver but rather due to the large amount of fuel being transferred. Booms transfer at a higher rate than drogue and probe. Fire hose vs garden hose.
I’m concerned our sergeant turned software developer has just discovered recursion… once he does the correction to the correction to the correction I think we may need to find somebody to turn him off and on again.
It's a great video and these errors don't effect your final grade in my book. So much information about all the militaries and proxies in the conflict is behind a fairly dense fog. Part of their job is surprises.
As someone who knows they are ignorant about military stuff, thanks for the corrections. Even if you make mistakes you are doing more good than harm to the knowledge of someone like me, if that makes sense.
Hey Ryan love your channel and will continue to support you indefinitely - one quick thing: if you want an illustration of how to do a long range mission using tankers and the complexity of such, look at Operation Black Buck from the Falklands conflict:
So many things to address in your analysis that I can't ft them all here. But mostly I do want to emphasize your point that Israel generally only reveals what it has when they approve export sales. So, we know little about the weapons they've developed specifically for dealing with Iran.
The recent revelation of the Air LORA is enlightening. Now you have an aeroballistic missile with a range of somewhere between 400 and 1000km. And a 570kg warhead one version of which is a high-speed penetrator. It very likely far exceeds JASSM or cruise missiles for penetration (due to kinetic energy). I can imagine it equaling or exceeding a BLU-109. But still not enough for what we assume the protection level is on Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure. They also have Rampage and Rocks aeroballistic missiles. The main point here is really that, excluding the nuclear weapons infrastructure penetration issue, they can reduce their need for tanker support considerably using these. And they probably have identified points in the nuclear weapons infrastructure that Air LORA can hold at risk.
Assumptions about Israeli cruise missiles are also fraught with the ASSuMe problem. All the data we have on Israeli air-launched cruise missiles is decades old. If they've deployed a 1500km range one on their submarines for nuclear strike, they could very well have an air-launched conventionally armed version with similar range.
Some time ago the IDF made a cryptic announcement about having extended the range of the F-35I. I don't know if you mentioned this or included some guesstimate in your spreadsheet. If you did, sorry I missed it. Drop tanks, conformal fuel tanks, or (apparently) genies for propulsion are in the mix.
On the bomb front they have the GBU-28, and had requested the GBU-72, though I doubt they have the later), for striking deeply buried Iranian targets. You aren't delivering 5000lb bombs with an F-35. Some version(s) of the plan have always included the F-15I.
They also have their own MPR-2000 penetrator, which is somewhere between the BLU-116 and BLU-137 in penetration. It is externally MK84 and JDAM kit-compatible, and there is some inference that it has been integrated for internal carry on the F-35I.
Israel SEAD doctrine is heavily drone-based and was the driving force in creation of suicide drones, specifically the IAI Harpy anti-radiation drone. I doubt they've ignored the need to counter Iranian air defenses.
We assume that the Jericho 2/3 (3A, 4?) missiles are all nuclear armed, which of course is because we assume Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. But there is that assume word again. Do we misread Israel's longstanding preference for using crewed fighters as being sufficiently arrogant that they wouldn't have developed and procured conventionally armed medium to intermediate range ballistic missiles to help with striking Iran? A 1000kg (Jericho 2) to 1300kg (Jericho 3) penetrator delivered at hypersonic speeds is a real possibility. And no refueling problem!
The list would kind of go on and on, with the bottom line being that we have no fucking idea what the Israelis have developed for dealing with Iran. All we know is they've been hyper focused on the problem of striking Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure for at least a couple of decades. We are likely in for some real surprises, as are the Iranians.
I don't know who you are, but evidently you know your onions about this stuff. Thanks
Thanks. Random hobbyist actually.
Correct your mistakes? you will never work in corporate media.
Yes the US Air Force went with the flying boom because of refueling bombers but not because of the nimbleness of the receiver but rather due to the large amount of fuel being transferred. Booms transfer at a higher rate than drogue and probe. Fire hose vs garden hose.
I’m concerned our sergeant turned software developer has just discovered recursion… once he does the correction to the correction to the correction I think we may need to find somebody to turn him off and on again.
It's a great video and these errors don't effect your final grade in my book. So much information about all the militaries and proxies in the conflict is behind a fairly dense fog. Part of their job is surprises.
As someone who knows they are ignorant about military stuff, thanks for the corrections. Even if you make mistakes you are doing more good than harm to the knowledge of someone like me, if that makes sense.
They updated the part where you said “they could do it once”"
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1843770647899705754
Hey Ryan love your channel and will continue to support you indefinitely - one quick thing: if you want an illustration of how to do a long range mission using tankers and the complexity of such, look at Operation Black Buck from the Falklands conflict:
https://www.flightlineweekly.com/post/the-vulcans-mission-impossible-operation-black-buck
“Bombers aren’t exactly nimble enough to stick a probe into a hole” cue Coughing fit From SQN Ldr Martin Withers
The RAF had a saying - now deprecated for multiple reasons - relating to one’s ability to find a hole if it had hair round it….
The later black buck missions had Shrike Antiradar missiles and were essentially SEAD sorties conducted over 7500km away from base….
Why doesn't the Biden administration want to hit the nuclear sites? I would think that this would be the perfect opportunity.