Defense Technology & Military Forum

Defense Technology & Military Forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/)
-   Navy & Maritime (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/)
-   -   Could the Khartoum hit have been Naval, not Air? (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/could-khartoum-hit-have-been-naval-not-air-12264/)

Quiller November 2nd, 2012 10:31 PM

Could the Khartoum hit have been Naval, not Air?
 
Nobody (outside major intel agencies) knows for sure what exactly happened in Khartoum. Some observers claim the satellite photos show "craters" they say must be from bombs or missiles. Of course IED explosives can cause craters as well.

Nonetheless... if Israel might be involved, as Sudan claims... any opinions on the liklihood that they were not munitions delivered by Israeli air assets, but were possibly conventionally-armed Popeye SLCM's launched from Israeli Dolphins in the Red Sea? Khartoum is only about 400 miles (and change) from Sudan's coastline. A small covey of Popeye's could have done the deed. And SLCMs would have been a safer bet then sending jets. I know not much is open source about the Popeye SLCM either, but it should have a 1500 km range.

Any thoughts?

Feanor November 3rd, 2012 03:36 PM

Russian sources claim it was an F-15I strike.

Ananda November 3rd, 2012 06:09 PM

From my understanding, Israel subs mostly operated in mediteranian. To move it, they have to used Suez, which under present situations in Egypt something that seems Israel did not want to do. In other word, Israel did not want someone in Egypt know their movement and possibly raised alarm in Sudan. Concerning Egypt now not working on sole command just like used to be under Mubarak.

Using F-15I is much more easier to covert, rather than has to move their Subs through red sea operation. Unless they have permanent stationed some of their subs on Eilat.

Lostfleet November 7th, 2012 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor (Post 254652)
Russian sources claim it was an F-15I strike.


It is a good chance for them to sell some fighters to Sudan

PCShogun November 12th, 2012 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor (Post 254652)
Russian sources claim it was an F-15I strike.

Local sources also say civilians on the ground saw 4 fighter jets. Still, that's a long flight for an F-15 meaning that support aircraft were involved and you can bet the U.S. Navy likely knew they were up there.

STURM November 12th, 2012 02:37 PM

It was also mentioned somewhere that there was an aircraft loitering in international airspace which was responsible for jamming Sudanese radar and comms. Makes sense if indeed 'foreign' aircraft had conducted a raid.

swerve November 13th, 2012 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PCShogun (Post 255246)
Local sources also say civilians on the ground saw 4 fighter jets. Still, that's a long flight for an F-15 meaning that support aircraft were involved and you can bet the U.S. Navy likely knew they were up there.

The US navy isn't everywhere all the time. Unless there were USN ships in the northern Red Sea at the time, they wouldn't have seen anything. Even if they were there & saw something, they wouldn't necessarily know what it signified. F-15s over the Red Sea? Could be Saudi. F-16s? Could be Egyptian. Tankers? Could be Saudi, could be someone's military transports.

The aircraft wouldn't have identified themselves.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2003-2011 DefenceTalk.com. All Rights Reserved.