« ISW paper on the al-Nusra Front in Syria | Main | "Russian troops join combat in Syria" Reuters »

09 September 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

alba etie

All
I believe that President Obama will never give a BUFF to BiBi- if the Borg/likudniks try he would veto the enabling legislation . I also believe that President JEB !, or Walker or Cruz would arm the Izzies to the teeth to take on the Persians . I fear that President HRC would also do as JEB would do and allow the Likudniks to light off World War 3 - by bombing the Ayotollahs . This is one of the reasons I was pulling for Senator Ron Paul - , as I am now pulling for Senator Bernie Sanders.. This is a national security national election full stop .

AEL

I would love to see Israel get suckered into accepting 10 Bones.
Can you say "white elephant". Literally.

The ongoing costs would put a crimp in their ability to run other adventures.

Alas, they are far too smart to accept.

The Twisted Genius

Margaret,

I don't consider myself anything more than an armchair strategist, but I am a practiced military tactician. Given that, I consider the idea of giving Israel any additional capability to strike Iran to be a colossally boneheaded idea. I would venture to say that many in the Israeli military would agree with me. Why give Netanyahu any additional excuse to put his foolish ideas into action? It's a bad idea for Israelis, Iranians, Americans and everyone else in the world.

BabelFish

Agree with that.

IMO (informed amateur) there are three aircraft in the US inventory that would be truly scary in Bibi's inventory. The B-52, the B-1B and the B-2.

The BUFF is still useful in a non-contested environment. It is a big old bomb truck, usually equipped with very strong jamming but has the radar signature of an office building. It also has very, very old equipment to maintain. It's first generation turbofans are early 60's vintage. It has long legs but it would be really costly to integrate and use. It would not do well in a highly contested environment.

The B-1B was purpose built for low level, high speed penetration. It is not truly stealthy but has a reduced radar profile. It is a very capable aircraft that would still have a tough time in a contested environment. Very long legs and supersonic dash capable. We have spare inventory and I have suspected this was the aircraft the crazy folks were intending to give to Bibi.

The B-2 is completely stealthy. It has the range and extremely sophisticated avionics. It is a highly complex aircraft, to maintain and to use. It would be pretty deadly although the Russians and Chinese are developing radar that can detect stealthy aircraft.

A couple of thoughts. Any of these aircraft would take significant infrastructure, training and logistics to become effective in another air force. No rental car (jump in and drive it) type usage. The effective date of operational capability would be quite some time after transfer. The fastest way to get that capability is to have Americans provide the servicing, logistics and training. I would not believe that former US pilots would fly missions. I guess I am saying that it could appear that, other than the piloting, that the US was essentially providing the capability to the Izzies.

It is an insane proposition no matter how you look at it.

Margaret Steinfels

If your right, it does sound insane. So can we be certain that the Republicans and those Dems looking for cover will be sure to propose one or the other aircraft? Introduce a Bill? And then, have the U.S. military tell them it won't work. Or will the Israeli military have to tell them? And Bibi?

different clue

AEL,

Why do you think such weapons systems would put a crimp in their ability to run other adventures? Which Israelis do you think are too smart to accept these weapons and which Israelis do you think would be desperate to receive them?

I think whatever Revisionist government rules Israel at the time such decisions are made and acted on would find the General Rippers and Major Kongs within their Air Force to turn these planes and bombs over to as immediately as possible. At that point, the "sensible" Israeli military and intelligence elite would have no survival option left but to try and mount a military coup against the Revisionist government and military actions against whatever Israeli "Rippers" and "Kongs" have recieved them or are about to receive them. They would know their chances might be bad unless they can strike fast and hard enough against enough Revisionists from the top working downward, but they might feel they have been left with no other hope-at-all of any survival alternative. Would I be wrong to foresee that response to giving the Revisionists such weapons in order for the Revisionists to give them to their willing warriors for near-immediate use?

And would I be wrong to think that the DC Republicans want Israeli Rippers and Kongs to have these planes and bombs for exactly the purpose of launching a near-immediate attack on Iran?
Would I be wrong to think that the Rapturanians and the Armageddonites want that to happen more than anyone else?

Tidewater

Tidewater to All,

In August a Russian offical stated that the long delayed delivery to Iran of four S-300 batteries will go ahead this year "for sure."

If so, that would change everything. Not just over the Bandar Abbas/ Hormuz region. Or over southern Iraq. I think it's hard to understand the full implications of this.

BabelFish

A little more clarity on what kind of aircraft would be on order for the Izzies. This is an Aviation Week article on the next gen Air Force long range bomber. As it states, only the B-2 is currently configured to carry the MOP.

If I have it right, there are only 20 of these left in our inventory (out of 21 built). They are all active. We have B-1Bs in 'ready to fly' storage. Without doubt, both the B-1B and the B-52 could be modified to carry a MOP.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usafs-secret-bomber-what-we-do-and-don-t-know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

confusedponderer

Margaret,
IMO the idea appears to be to do things that rather obviously defy the spirit of the deal, clearly aiming on aggravating the Iranians so much they'll quit.

The BUFFs as an item in a bill may just sufice, the IDF doesn't even need to have them for the idea to do harm. That US pols are talking about it is harmful aready, as the Iranians will very reasonably understand the move as what it is - as a threat directed, explicitly, at Iran. Which is the point.

IMO that is part of AIPAC's Plan B - they probably are now going to have some of their beholden vote FOR the deal, only to make additions to 'improve' the deal i.e. subvert it by adding bipartisan poison pills like 'BUFFs for Bibi' or more sanctions and whatever else they'll come up with.

In a nutshell, they'll try to backstab Obama and will call it helping.

oofda

And don't forget the arms control treaty violation of providing Israel MOPs and the aircraft to carry them. Think what the Russians might do in response. Again what are we thinking?

And did anyone catch Morning Joe this morning- Scarborough was out of control, decrying anyone who opposed the Iran Deal, pulling out the anti-Semitism card. Even his partner got tired of it.

turcopolier

oofda

What Scarborough said was (in essence) that anyone who supports the Iran deal is an anti-Semite. pl

different clue

Tidewater,

One hopes the Russians get that delivery made, finished, deployed within Iran, and the Iranians totally trained in its use before any Big Planes-Big Bombs systems are physically delivered into Israel. Most hopefully of all, before any such things are even voted on. Perhaps a visible sense of pre-arranged futility on the part of the Russians/Iranians will throw the DC Republicans into a defeatist funk to where they won't even bother legislating the sendover of such planes and bombs.

AEL

Israel has a population of about 8.5 million people.

The care and feeding of 10 B-1B bombers would be a huge expense.
The re-organization and restructuring of the IAF would take years and it would consume a large proportion of their defense budget.
They are not "turnkey" systems and they would be unable to perform any immediate operations. Short of sending over trained American servicemen, the IAF would need a long time to digest this meal.

Next, Bones are not invulnerable to a halfway decent air defense and Iran will have the S-300 soon. Losing one would be hugely embarrassing, and the IAF would shudder to think of trying to recover any downed air crew. Israel is quite sensitive to potential prisoners of war.

I honestly think that any IAF general would laugh in your face if you seriously tried to give them to him. The only hope would be to try and corner a civilian politician into accepting them before the military rebels. (which is unlikely, given that there seem to be large numbers of former generals in Israeli politics).

Tidewater

Tidewater to different clue,

I agree.

Medicine Man

I wonder if Joe Scarborough believes his own vitriol or if he's just well paid to push narratives as aggressively as possible? Both?

turcopolier

MM

IMO Joe is not as stupid as he seems and is just sucking up to what he was defending today. pl

William R. Cumming

Are MENA's borders largely open? Except for Israel of course!

Croesus

neglecting work to listen to GOP and Dems debate the Iran agreement.

Don't be snookered: they are working together.
GOP is the scare choir saying "no no no" - their talking points are mind-numbingly the same, "Iran = evil, don't trust them; inspections a joke, Obama a joke."

The boilerplate is a dead giveaway: these are AIPAC talking points.

No member of US Congress spoke one word about the fact that Iran has been a signatory of NPT, under inspections; that since 1995 Iran and the Arab States have been trying to 'collect' on the promise -- in exchange for their (1995) agreement to an extension of NPT , a conference would be held, with Israel's nukes on the table, about making the ME a nuclear-free zone.

This is a fact. http://armscontrollaw.com/2013/04/30/egyptian-delegation-walks-out-of-npt-prepcom-meeting-over-failure-to-convene-middle-east-wmd-summit/

Nor has any congressman (so far) mentioned that the USA has already "cheated" on the deal --

http://armscontrollaw.com/2015/03/17/la-times-reports-the-iaea-is-unlawfully-sharing-safeguards-information-with-the-u-s-government/

No one raises the specter of Netanyahu's Sept 12 2002 encouragement to US Congress to go to war in Iraq in order to "take out the keystone of the network of terror."


GOP seeks to constrain any ability of Obama admin. to provide sanctions relief through some arcane parliamentary maneuvers.

The true genius is in the Democratic speakers.

For example, Adam Schiff --"we should vote FOR this agreement AND we should ensure Israel's qualitative military superiority and provide them the ability to bomb Iran's deepest facilities" -- i.e. MOP.

Sounds to me like the good cop-bad cop scheme is to block sanctions relief but provide more weapons and money to Israel.

This is shameful, and frightening.

Jewish members are only slightly less foreword than non-Jews in declaring their undying love for Israel "our best. . . vital . . .eternal . . .ally, the Jewish democracy ."

Fred

WRC,

Fences, which "can't" work along the Rio Grande sure seem to work in Israel.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

October 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad