Could US send B-2 bombers to bomb Iranian air force on the ground?
- Thread starter sunjerem
- Start date
Diego Garcia is one of the bases for B-2 bombers is well within striking distance of Iran. So is the base in England.
A handfull of B-2 loaded up could take out half of the Iranium airforce on the ground. If the strike was pre-emptive and Iran was not on high alert the bombers would slaughter iran.
For a pre-emptive strike to be succesfull they would have to go in with minimal support so Iran doesn't go on alert if they told that two aircraft carriers are in the area.
The bomber strike would be co-ordinated with fighter escorts after the bombs have hit. So the bombers will be alone on the way to the target, but when the Iran airforce becomes airborn and try and chase the B-2's they will face a wall of Eagles coming from their right flank.
This is risky sending in the B-2's alone, if Iran is on alert they will not risk it. Unless the F-22 is used but it will not be able to stick around for the entire mission without inflight refueling which would alert Iran.
If they were on alert then they could simply hit then the US could simply use its brute force with naval and airforce aircraft as well as cruise missile attacks. Within a day Irans war fighting capability would be halved.
For a Pre-emptive strike to be successful it would be very hard to keep it underwraps without Iran finding out. But i guess the USAF is the only force that could hit any target on the planet with extreme force and little military movement to warn the enemy.
There will never be a ground offensive into Iran. The best they could acheive is sending Iran back into the stone age with an aerial bombardment but then the millions of muslims will be hating the yanks even further.
A handfull of B-2 loaded up could take out half of the Iranium airforce on the ground. If the strike was pre-emptive and Iran was not on high alert the bombers would slaughter iran.
For a pre-emptive strike to be succesfull they would have to go in with minimal support so Iran doesn't go on alert if they told that two aircraft carriers are in the area.
The bomber strike would be co-ordinated with fighter escorts after the bombs have hit. So the bombers will be alone on the way to the target, but when the Iran airforce becomes airborn and try and chase the B-2's they will face a wall of Eagles coming from their right flank.
This is risky sending in the B-2's alone, if Iran is on alert they will not risk it. Unless the F-22 is used but it will not be able to stick around for the entire mission without inflight refueling which would alert Iran.
If they were on alert then they could simply hit then the US could simply use its brute force with naval and airforce aircraft as well as cruise missile attacks. Within a day Irans war fighting capability would be halved.
For a Pre-emptive strike to be successful it would be very hard to keep it underwraps without Iran finding out. But i guess the USAF is the only force that could hit any target on the planet with extreme force and little military movement to warn the enemy.
There will never be a ground offensive into Iran. The best they could acheive is sending Iran back into the stone age with an aerial bombardment but then the millions of muslims will be hating the yanks even further.
Last edited:
Sometimes smacking an upstart in the teeth for getting up in your grill makes him realize he's a not so big in his britches and avoids a deeper confrontation.sunjerem said:
More often than not however; it makes the threat go 'all female' in feeling like they have been unfairly abused for simply challenging your dominance. At which point they decide to get even, no matter what it costs.
The Iranians have a long history of doing deals with terrorists but they have, thus far, kept the attacks they made on muslim/arab targets a lot less visible than those on the U.S.
Since any hit on the U.S. is perceived with the same adolescent glee as a kid knifing a teacher (they have the power, but if we can kill/humiliate/insult them...maybe we aren't so weak.) there is no sense of urgency in dealing with the threat that they can choose to ignore.
Such is the nature of the Muslim Conscience the World Over. And of course it is why they are in fact dominated and dispossessed of immense wealth, mostly by their own leadership. Because said leadership ALSO takes every possible chance to distract from the obvious with any extra-national bone there is.
Is the U.S. any better? We don't fly jets into buildings and say we didn't do it. But we do go literally out of our ops-area way to generate tension by engaging pissant PCI/FIAC type threats with heavy naval vessels.
So that we can take the fight to the oil platforms from which these 'little ships' launch. And if we nail an Iran Air 747 legitimately in it's own air corridor because we are OUT of ours?
It's just the price of doing business in terms of oil.
And so we let incidents like Flight 800 slide as a tacit admission of tit for tat guilt and this makes all the little muftis over there think we /want/ to play their game.
A very dangerous precedent to set.
In the end, the reality of life is this: The only threats which we REALLY have to worry about are the nukes. And if the Nukes are on Cruise or Shahab, they are actually 'good for U.S.' (or at least our defense contractors) because they effectively endorse the development of GBI and ABL and similar weapons.
Weapons which, previously, everyone from NATO, the UN and Russia have ALL been yelping against.
OTOH, if we overtly destroy their admittedly fixed and (for the moment) readily targeted launch facilities for their IRBMs in particular; we generate a situation whereby _now_ they may think about a short range missile on the back of a boat. Or a suitcase nuke.
Since the AP newswire (I think it is) has announced that Osama and Company have the 'permission of a licensed mullah' for up to a 10 million person mass casualty among the infidel/apostate populations; we are now in a situation whereby we cannot FIND all their dispersed nuclear facilities. And so we had damn well /better/ hostage their delivery systems.
Which will only remain vulnerable so long as they are not shown to be conventionally targetable on a short-reaction window notification (SLCM or conventional SLBM).
Even as the people who REALLY run the Arab world realize that those IRBMs will not be targeted on the U.S. (which would simply, _finally_ remove Islam as a stain upon humanity from this world). But rather upon Europe and the mid-East oil fields. Along with perhaps Southern Russia.
As a kind of razed earth + hate the U.S. attempt to put us 'all on an equal footing'.
In any case, playing Six Day War with what you yourself state to be a less than threatening opponent doesn't do us any good. Because the Iranians, forever a city state locked in a 2,000 year old view of what /makes/ a nation state, 'have gone all female' and would simply seek even harder to make our lives miserable in places like Iraq and AfG.
If you are going to hit these people, your best choice is a decapitation strike DIRECTLY at the leadership. Your second best option is to create the same kinds of imbalance and terror among the Arabs as they wish to foment in Iraq.
Probably with a staged 'event' of somekind which can be blamed on the Iranians. An assassination within one of the Royal Families for instance.
CONCLUSION:
I wouldn't wipe my shoes on these peoples doormats for fear of having to burn my footwear if I had a choice. But they are a lot less stupid than the Iraqi's -ever- were. So the reality is either picking a fight and forcing the Iranians to prostrate themselves as a direct admission of what their nationalism is 'don't bring none, don't be none' leading to. RIGHT NOW.
Or to back out and castrate our own oil interests while going into wind, tide and fuel cell technology as fast as we can.
The REAL problem then being that Iran could easily make itself a regional superpower (owner of the Gulf) if we leave. The Saudis are rife with corruption and criticism of their 'friendship' with U.S. And nobody else has the swing to stand tall.
And once they ARE effectively OPEC; the reign of the USD as a fiat currency will end. And that would crush our economy flat.
So basically we are playing out a game of Armageddon Chess, hoping the one side will make a mistake 'before it comes to that'. And knowing that, this time, with all the historical examples to go by, the same errors of overreach will not likely be made. Or at least ours (getting a feather up our ass to go into Iraq without intending to _make an example of an enemy populace_) will be the first and most telling one.
KPl.
P.S. There is no real reason for the U.S. to use B-2s. Tomahawk and CALCM would provide vastly superior (more targets simultaneously with better individual aimpoint refinment). Nor could we count on being able to deploy F-22s to a landward base without that itself being both remarked upon and a source of further friction if we attacked. That said, the real tells will always be the DEAD and EA support missions because while the ability of any Iranian threat airframe to tackle a B-2 operating in the 45-55K height band is minimal; we absolutely could not afford to NOT take out the IOC/SOC systems by which an S2A threat could be directed.
I assume the Iranians have S-75 and HAWK which are nominally point defense systems at this altitude. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have an S-300 battery or two (gee thanks Putin!) and the combination of the two, plus a decent cuer, could easily put a Batarang in a heckuva 'F.G. Powers' conditional situation with similar engagement geometry problems and performance issues plus a LOT larger planform.
Add to this the LONG period interval (probably 20-30hrs before they could turn and come back) and even a full 20X16 or 320 aimpoint strike doesn't seem likely to do much useful to the direct military infrastructure. Command and possibly industrial assets? Yes. But the warfighter, probably not. You would need GBU-39 or 39 to really saturation-kill an airfield and all wing components thereon. And that's assuming the Iranians don't go to a dispersal plan. Their fast boats and any WMD are going to be even harder.
Much more so than a casual fast pass with the APQ-181 off a grainy satellite photo could guarantee. For that kind of target, your best bet is holding pen orbits of cruise and as many UAV as you can scrounge.
Something to keep in mind when you consider the way the Iranians will kick us in the nuts is to hostage the tanker lanes again. Just look at how fast Lloyds put an end to the 1980-88 sport war when it was discovered that Mines had gone outside Hormuz.
KPl.
contedicavour
New Member
Frankly targeting the IRIAF is a bit useless.
Iran's strength is its army and its militias as the Pasdaran.
We'll always have enough time to wipe out the IRIAF, the real issue would be how to cope with the army units covering the underground nuclear facilities.
cheers
Iran's strength is its army and its militias as the Pasdaran.
We'll always have enough time to wipe out the IRIAF, the real issue would be how to cope with the army units covering the underground nuclear facilities.
cheers
Taking out the Iranian air force, air defense network, and command and control, would be target #1. In the opening hours of the campaign Iran would absorb an unprecedented precision attack package consisting of aircraft and warship smart weaponry. Iran is surrounded by many airbases Allied airplanes could use in time of war including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait....ect
I would suspect we would use our bombers but its very possible most of the initial strikes would be by tactical aircraft. Most of all F-117s and F-22s, but ER F-16s and F-15s as well. I remember during the Shahs time, the Shah, was big on getting the best hardened shelters money could buy for his warplanes. So....we would have to deal with those. And certainly we would but it would take time. Of importance is the fact that these hardened shelters cant move and thus could be struck with standoff weapons. We could deliver a huge package of precision standoff weapons that we didnt have available in Gulf-1. JASSM was custom built for this type mission and the Iranians would have a terrible time with it. Soon we will have an ER version of it with a data link capability. Call it the "2,000 lb stealthy bomb from hell with a range of 500 miles", and "one we'll be able to talk to and change/update targets with".
I'm not even sure they understand what they would be up against. When I hear them boasting about all their super-weapons
What I really hear is a bunch of people who are either scared or have unrealistic expectations of their capabilities, "and probably both". If they think they are going to be facing the same machine that ground Saddams air force into the dust in Gulf-1 they are wrong.
The S-300 is a good system but the terrain is unfavorable for air defense, especially with no airborne warning capability, and especially against the advanced airplanes and tactics of the Yank air forces. Once we destroy the air defense "network", and destroy it we shall, the capability of the S-300 will be reduced.
I would anticipate a 4 to 6 week campaign to reduce them to a century befitting them ,and, derail their nuclear program.
I would suspect we would use our bombers but its very possible most of the initial strikes would be by tactical aircraft. Most of all F-117s and F-22s, but ER F-16s and F-15s as well. I remember during the Shahs time, the Shah, was big on getting the best hardened shelters money could buy for his warplanes. So....we would have to deal with those. And certainly we would but it would take time. Of importance is the fact that these hardened shelters cant move and thus could be struck with standoff weapons. We could deliver a huge package of precision standoff weapons that we didnt have available in Gulf-1. JASSM was custom built for this type mission and the Iranians would have a terrible time with it. Soon we will have an ER version of it with a data link capability. Call it the "2,000 lb stealthy bomb from hell with a range of 500 miles", and "one we'll be able to talk to and change/update targets with".
I'm not even sure they understand what they would be up against. When I hear them boasting about all their super-weapons
What I really hear is a bunch of people who are either scared or have unrealistic expectations of their capabilities, "and probably both". If they think they are going to be facing the same machine that ground Saddams air force into the dust in Gulf-1 they are wrong.The S-300 is a good system but the terrain is unfavorable for air defense, especially with no airborne warning capability, and especially against the advanced airplanes and tactics of the Yank air forces. Once we destroy the air defense "network", and destroy it we shall, the capability of the S-300 will be reduced.
I would anticipate a 4 to 6 week campaign to reduce them to a century befitting them ,and, derail their nuclear program.
And what do you want to use against their facilities buried into the mountains? Do you want to use tactical nuclear weapons?
Another problem while just using air power is the possible counter attack by the army forces of the Iran directly into the Iraq.
Another problem while just using air power is the possible counter attack by the army forces of the Iran directly into the Iraq.
Very true.. the bombs used to hit them on the ground could be used for other targets, as aircraft on the ground cannot do anything.
Aircraft are only dangerous once they are in the air, if they do happen to take off they'll get shot down by an enemy they cant even see.
The USAF is many times stronger than in Gulf war one and they are getting stronger every year. Remember that the first gulf war was 15 years ago,
The USAF now has 10 times as many standoff weapons available, 100 times as many precision guided weapons and the B-2 is now fully operational and combat proven. The icing on the cake is the USAF now has the F-22.
If the USAF had the same build up in the Gulf war i think the USAF would run out of targets after destroying a couple thousand targets in the first day
Aircraft are only dangerous once they are in the air, if they do happen to take off they'll get shot down by an enemy they cant even see.
The USAF is many times stronger than in Gulf war one and they are getting stronger every year. Remember that the first gulf war was 15 years ago,
The USAF now has 10 times as many standoff weapons available, 100 times as many precision guided weapons and the B-2 is now fully operational and combat proven. The icing on the cake is the USAF now has the F-22.
If the USAF had the same build up in the Gulf war i think the USAF would run out of targets after destroying a couple thousand targets in the first day
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I would rather agree that it wouldn't be necessary to take out the Iranian airforce on the ground, because it's not that much of a threat in the air. Of course if the US wanted to, it could also just saturate its bases with Tomohawks, though that would probably have to be backed up by air attacks too.
In another forum I had someone come up with this "pitchforks and scythes" scenario where'as the enraged Iranians, after just such an air attack, would as a people become enraged and charge as one across the border at US forces.Waylander said:
nfloorl: "No Im not relating this to your post Waylander'.Can you imagine that? Or lets say they take their cars? Even better lets say they try something they have no expertise in, like, forming mobile armored divisions and start moving them west. Towards the poor helpless Americans. Well....now they are fighting our kind of war and they would be slaughtered piece meal by our air forces and helicopters before they even got within artillery range. Besides, it aint all that easy to move mountains of equipment cohesively, to supply them properly, fuel them, Intel them,and protect them. Most of all when your air force is destroyed in the opening hours of the war.
I dont think the Iranians are that stupid. This is the main reason they want nukes, because they realize they will never be a match for the conventional forces arrayed against them in the shifting political sands of The Gulf region. I know many Europeans are impressed with the enraged Yank hating Iranian. Well, I have faced both them and an enraged US Marine once in a bar fight and I would take the enraged Iranian anyday.
And my answer would be "yes" tactical nuclear weapons would be my choice to take out such targets.
contedicavour
New Member
That's why few people are worried about the Iranian armed forces at all... the problem is the militias (pasdaran) and the mess that would be organized by Iran in Iraq and Lebanon... not to mention the risk that Western oriented regimes in Arab countries would be toppled by mass protests organized and financed by Iran.Rich said:In another forum I had someone come up with this "pitchforks and scythes" scenario where'as the enraged Iranians, after just such an air attack, would as a people become enraged and charge as one across the border at US forces.
Can you imagine that? Or lets say they take their cars? Even better lets say they try something they have no expertise in, like, forming mobile armored divisions and start moving them west. Towards the poor helpless Americans. Well....now they are fighting our kind of war and they would be slaughtered piece meal by our air forces and helicopters before they even got within artillery range. Besides, it aint all that easy to move mountains of equipment cohesively, to supply them properly, fuel them, Intel them,and protect them. Most of all when your air force is destroyed in the opening hours of the war.
I dont think the Iranians are that stupid. This is the main reason they want nukes, because they realize they will never be a match for the conventional forces arrayed against them in the shifting political sands of The Gulf region. I know many Europeans are impressed with the enraged Yank hating Iranian. Well, I have faced both them and an enraged US Marine once in a bar fight and I would take the enraged Iranian anyday.
And my answer would be "yes" tactical nuclear weapons would be my choice to take out such targets.
To summarize, it's not the hyopthetical war against Iran that would worry me, it's the "what's next" scenarios that look nightmarish to me.
No I am not talking of massed tank divisions. I am talking of well trained, small infantry units (With modern ATGMs), combat engineers, special forces, etc.
If the Iran begins to use such forces they could make the live of the GIs in Iraq much more horrible than it is even now.
If the Iran begins to use such forces they could make the live of the GIs in Iraq much more horrible than it is even now.
howdy guys...I'm kinda new here...well as to why the americans wont do that..technically, they can afford to do watever the hell they want, n get away with it..lol..but u might wana consider the fact that 1- by doing so they might put israel at risk (hezbollahs adventures), 2- it would agitate more moderate muslim allies, 3- more pressure on ground troops, since wiping off the iranian airforce dosent serve to appease the nuclear row (in fact it would encourage iran to go nuclear)...furthermore, takin control of its nuclear assets would mean establishing control on the ground... whereby an iraqi style invasion is sensless n would result in an unaffordable number of casualties (they r a feircly soverign lot) and 4- pressure back home to bring back the troops n withdraw from conflict is slowly but surely growing....n ther r many more reasons that could be attributed to the restraint or rather the posturing approach the US is practicing instead of taking matters into thier own handssunjerem said:
DragonKing786
New Member
I'm new
From reading this, and seeing the Iraq war...yes u can bomb their air bases and stuff..but also remember Iran Can make their own weapons (stop this non-sense they have no tech and stuff, what kills ..KILLS
Their air force is nothing, but to win the war u would have to bring in ground forces Iran who has an army of 300K also has 11-17M Militia all who are armed, and as u know the ME everyone owns a AK and Rocket launcher, which will result in huge losses for Allied forces..
U might say look at what we did in Iraq, but also remember that Iraq fought for 8 years with Iran and after war made error of hitting Kuwait and his actions never allowed Iraq to build up their army again thus making it easy for Allied Forces to hit Iraq, where as Iran acquired new weapons and building their own, which Iraq couldn't do at all, since they were embargoed and no-fly zones and stuff. Going to war with Iraq is a totally different scanerio, and they test Israel using Hezbullah, they i'm sure they know that Gorilla war fare would work in their favor, and also Iran i'm pretty sure has been observing Iraq war to not make the same errors!
From reading this, and seeing the Iraq war...yes u can bomb their air bases and stuff..but also remember Iran Can make their own weapons (stop this non-sense they have no tech and stuff, what kills ..KILLS
Their air force is nothing, but to win the war u would have to bring in ground forces Iran who has an army of 300K also has 11-17M Militia all who are armed, and as u know the ME everyone owns a AK and Rocket launcher, which will result in huge losses for Allied forces..
U might say look at what we did in Iraq, but also remember that Iraq fought for 8 years with Iran and after war made error of hitting Kuwait and his actions never allowed Iraq to build up their army again thus making it easy for Allied Forces to hit Iraq, where as Iran acquired new weapons and building their own, which Iraq couldn't do at all, since they were embargoed and no-fly zones and stuff. Going to war with Iraq is a totally different scanerio, and they test Israel using Hezbullah, they i'm sure they know that Gorilla war fare would work in their favor, and also Iran i'm pretty sure has been observing Iraq war to not make the same errors!
I have no doubt that the US are able to punch Irans armed forces into the ground when fighting an conventional maneuver war. Maybe with higher losses than in Iraq due to the bigger and more difficult terrain and to lessons learned and invented together with the Hizbollah.
As said before here by some members the problem comes after this.
As said before here by some members the problem comes after this.
DragonKing786
New Member
Yes also remember they make their own Shoulder fired Surface to Air missiles, that can take out low flying targets like Heli's (Bhawks, Cobras, etc.)
And they also have their own Anti-Tank which can knock out trails and the wheels thus dismobolibzing the tank and putting the crew safety in jeopardy, and they have a navy which can cause some damage if they know how to manuver and stuff.
but If war happens this will be the deadliest war USA modern army will might!
And they also have their own Anti-Tank which can knock out trails and the wheels thus dismobolibzing the tank and putting the crew safety in jeopardy, and they have a navy which can cause some damage if they know how to manuver and stuff.
but If war happens this will be the deadliest war USA modern army will might!
I highly doubt the US army will move into Iran. Air bombing can acheive their objectives.
The US army could not invade iran unless the Iraq war and afganistan was completely over and all of the troops were available. The US army cannot conduct a Gulf war invasion at the moment as they would be overstretched.
The US airfoce and Navy are definitely not overstretched, right now they could conduct a "gulf war" bombing compaign against iran with enough aircraft spare to give it to North Korea at the same time:
This shows that the US army is the weakest point of its military as they only have enough troops to conduct two minor conflicts at the same time. Where as the US airforce and Navy could perform 3 or 4 minor bombing campaigns at the same time. You can easily spread out the aircraft out between each area and with the fewer aircraft you can still destroy the same amount of targets it will just take a few extra days.
The army thought has no such luxury, if you spread out the troops too thin, they'll die. Irans army would be very deadly unless the US throws 100% of its power into the ground war.
The US army could not invade iran unless the Iraq war and afganistan was completely over and all of the troops were available. The US army cannot conduct a Gulf war invasion at the moment as they would be overstretched.
The US airfoce and Navy are definitely not overstretched, right now they could conduct a "gulf war" bombing compaign against iran with enough aircraft spare to give it to North Korea at the same time
: This shows that the US army is the weakest point of its military as they only have enough troops to conduct two minor conflicts at the same time. Where as the US airforce and Navy could perform 3 or 4 minor bombing campaigns at the same time. You can easily spread out the aircraft out between each area and with the fewer aircraft you can still destroy the same amount of targets it will just take a few extra days.
The army thought has no such luxury, if you spread out the troops too thin, they'll die. Irans army would be very deadly unless the US throws 100% of its power into the ground war.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
What is nonsense is that Iran can reach out and hurt the US.
The US losses in iraq do not come from smashing up, invading. etc. that country. They come from rebuilding, peacekeeping and patrolling.
So if you absolutely want to draw an analogy, then it would be that the US could totally wreck Iran with less than 100 casualties.
Think about that...
The US losses in iraq do not come from smashing up, invading. etc. that country. They come from rebuilding, peacekeeping and patrolling.
So if you absolutely want to draw an analogy, then it would be that the US could totally wreck Iran with less than 100 casualties.
Think about that...