Some of the good folks at MIT have just figured how many bombs it would take for the Israeli Air Force to blow up Iran’s entire nuclear weapons infrastructure. Apparently, it isn’t so hard after all.
For those keeping score at home, here’s what the Israelis would need:
(24) 5,000-pound BLU-113 penetrator warheads to collapse the underground centrifuge halls at Natanz
(2) 2,000-pound bombs to destroy the above ground pilot production plant at Natanz
(12) 2,000-pound BLU-109 penetrator warheads to blow up the underground uranium conversion facility at Esfahan
(10) 2,000-pound GBU-10 laser guided bombs to hit the heavy water production plant and reactor site at Arak
But, according to the MIT report, there is one major catch: the air strike on Natanz could fail if Iran’s air defenses succeed in downing only two of the IAF’s strike package of 24 F-15Is if each is loaded with a single BLU-113.
MIT concludes, however:
“The foregoing assessment is far from definitive in its evaluation of Israeli military potential. However it does seem to indicate that the IAF, after years of modernization, now possesses the capability to destroy even well-hardened targets in Iran with some degree of confidence. The operation appears to be no more risky than the earlier attack on Osirak and provides at least as much benefit in terms of delaying Iranian development of nuclear weapons.”
(You can read the entire study here)
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
In terms of bombs needed to actually destroy the targets themselves, the study seems accurate. Consider however that the study includes three distinct locations to be struck. This means three separate strike packages. For each target, the Israelis would have to assemble aircraft to take care of SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) and general air cover. Also, there might be need for pre and post strike reconnaissance and air to air refueling for which the Israelis have a very limited capacity. Add to this the fact that the IAF would have to carve their way into and out of the Iranian air defense network as they lack any stealth strike capability, and you begin to see the number of aircraft spiral upwards dramatically. It would not be inconceivable to see the Israelis need 25-40 aircraft per strike (10-15 SEAD aircraft, 5-10 for air cover, 10-15 for the strike itself) as a bare minimum.
I’m just wondering what’s taking us so long to do the job… oh yeah, congress won’t even give our soldiers some new shoes…
Because IAF bombers can only be used once and not, say, fly back again the following week. But then I am not employed by a think-tank so what do I know.
the geneva convention is outdated. do you know that it actually refers to dropping “bombs out of balloons”? furthermore, i think the idea is that if israel were to strike and fail , maybe iran would be better prepared to deal with them? iran has a rather formidable airforce , although i don’t think that any one middle eastern country actually poses a threat to israel.
Remember, we can always supplement such an attack with cruise missles from a distance.
Overall… I like it!
It’s not bad at all for a couple of PhDs-in-waiting from ‘other’ backgrounds. They could have been pretty good targeteers and might still be a couple of fine policy wonks someday. They’re strongest in discussing system vulnerabilities with derived possible aimpoints (very John Warden-esque) as well as in the review of the political aspects (hardly surprising given their areas of study). What I like most about it though is it gives the Mullahs:
1. An idea (within an order of magnitude) of just how LOW the bar can be for implementing practical preemption, and
2. Some stimulus for worry about all the possibilities NOT mentioned play out in their punkin’ little heads.
Do people here understand the possible consequences of the strike. It seems most of the people here are pro-blowing stuff up.
Iran can retaliate, and it won’t be pretty if they did.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/5904d830-2afa-4bb9-a028-3cd52fbd5630.html
Good grief. If we can take out Iran’s nukes with just that, does that mean we can take out NK with just a few well placed m67s? lol
-Billy Big Spuds
So it’s ok for one middle eastern sectarian state to have fission, fusion & neutron bombs, but not ok for another? It seems to me one rule should apply to all. If this strike is justified, then so is one against Dimona And other facilities.
The USA did in fact veto a UN resolution sponsored by Iran to ban nuclear weapons in the middle east.
Same all-conquering IDF that should have been able to roll Hizbullah, too?
*yawn* more masturbatory posturing by people who desperately want to believe there’s a problem “over there” which you can solve by blowing up the right things.
“But, according to the MIT report, there is one major catch: the air strike on Natanz could fail if Iran’s air defenses succeed in downing only two of the IAF’s strike package of 24 F-15Is if each is loaded with a single BLU-113.”
This is true, but the article also mentions they can significantly reduce this risk by adding more F16I’s to the mission, armed with BLU-109′s. In this case 2 or more bombs will have to dropped on exactly the same spot – the later bombs drilling into the crater of the 1st.
“So it’s ok for one middle eastern sectarian state to have fission, fusion & neutron bombs, but not ok for another?”
I’m sure it would have been more OK if their leader didn’t repeatetly threaten to wipe another middle eastern state of the map.
A more recent version of this assessment is available in the Spring 2007 issue of the journal International Security.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/isec/31/4
Hmm, the Article totally ignores the installation of these:
http://mosnews.com/news/2006/09/25/missiles.shtml
They are already delivered.
Or a simple thing called training:
http://mosnews.com/news/2007/04/11/iranianmaneuvers.shtml
Trey seems correct. I doubt the Israelis will leave Iranian air defense, runways alone or run their bombers without fighter escort. Redundancy increases the low odds of hitting everything anyway. Refueling, support and diversionary tactics probably ups the number of aircraft.
Perhaps the Saudis might not mind providing a corridor. Iraq doesn’t have much say, do they? Cruise missiles will undoubtedly be used. In reality a number of bloggers I have read say it might require 300 plus aircraft to hit all the individual targets (and HOW many? I thought there are at least thirty) with a high confidence of destruction. They might have to drop five times the number of bombs these guys calculated. We sent them five hundred bunker busters a year or so ago. Perhaps that is what it will take with follow ups and removing missile sites etc.
Iran can respond and conventional termination of their forces will follow (US would probably intervene in a broadening of conflict and most assume the US would have given a green light to begin with). Iranian cards hurt their own economy and closing the Gulf is a piece of extortion Iran can always leverage. Again, is it better to face nuclear extortion?.
Of course, we could just watch a monster build them and hope he won’t do anything nasty. What is Iran anger about anyway? We removed Iran’s two greatest threats and our retreat can only threaten the gains the Mullah
I recently read that the American concrete institute (something like that) has an anual competetion to see who can make the strongest concrete. Seems the Iranian team won, with a granite based concrete infused with steel threads. WHereas normal concrete might have a stregnth of 1500-5000 psi, the iranian concrete went over 50,000 psi before their machine broke. I think its likely that they have made their underground facilities proof against all but nuclear strikes.
Dont be to sure.
I wish Defense tech posted a thread on neutron bombs and their possible tactical application in bunker busters. Little is know about their real capabilities and radiation release. Popular Mechanics had an article recently on flexible concrete. Strong stuff.
Sending one bomb after another might be effective, but that raises the number needed. One doesn’t need to actually destroy a target to make it unusable. Tungsten spears anyone?
Perhaps Defense tech can revisit the issue of busting bunkers and the actual number of suspected sites in Iran. I assume the Israelis will be careful with bombing targets in major cites and they would certainly have to consider Iranian response of launching strikes and missiles at their own sites
I think that after the plant comes on line no one in his right mind would attack it directly, but strangle it by going after the cooling towers and the auxilary sources which feed it.
We have bought SA-20,TOR M1 & other advance hi tech equipment from Russia just to bang IAF ass just in case if they try any misadventure.
The Israeli military strategy realizing it might have to one day face an Iranian nuclear threat, is about survival from a belligerent nation state
that contiunes to threaten with annihilation; is defensive. The nations in the Middle East see it as an undeniable threat, from a secular point of view. These Iranian Islamic lunatics take this cause a bit farther with a religious zeal to fulfill a 12 Iman prophecy, and do not fear reprisal with there belief in martyrdom. So how do you deal with people like this ? Carry on IAF & give ‘em the Great Spartan attack !
Hi Folks;
It occured to me that perhaps the IAF should consider using and/or developing and using 10 kiloton yield neutron bombs for attacking deeply buried superhardened targets. The nuetron bombs could be incorporated into robust deep penetrators that could possibly penetrate into the interior of the facilities before detonating.
A rough order calculation would suggest that a 10 kiloton neutron bomb releases enough energy to completely cook 300,000 metric tons of human flesh to 160 degrees F, about the same temperature at which pork is considered fully sterilized and cooked. This is the weight of about 5 million average adults. In reality, to kill any human cell, heating to 115 degrees F is sufficient and so such a device could completely cook 1,200,000 metric tons of human flesh dead in an instant under optimal conditions. This amounts to approximately 18 million average massed adults. Since the energy required for immeadiate and permanent incapacitation (i.e., death) is much less yet, due to radiation poisioning, such a device should be able to instantly incapacitate any concievable shelter for which an internal explosion would occur.
The specific heat of concrete is only about 1/5 to 1/4 that of water and so a 10 kiloton neutron bomb could in theory heat 300,000 metric tons of concrete to about 370 degree F in an instant assumming the simplified model that all of the neutron energy would be converted into concrete kinetic energy.
I feel whether it is the Isrealis that develop 10 kiloton neutron bombs or the U.S. or whatever, neutron bombs can be an excellent weapon for use in attacking hardened below ground assets. As a Catholic, I hold the opinion in line with the strongly expressed opinion of the late Pope John Paul II that those of the Jewish Faith can be considered our elder brothers. I support Isreal’s right to exist and its ability to defend itself from regimes that desire the destruction of the Isreali state.
All this talk about bombing is just talk. If this really happens, it would bring Russia and the U.S. into a broader conflict, even China. Israel needs the U.S. green light to go ahead and bomb Iran, they also need USAF refueling Tankers to get the job done. Iran would hold the US accountable and lock down the Persian Gulf targeting every Oil Tanker in and out of the Middle East, this would send oil and gas prices through the roof, maybe $200 or $300 a barrel. Iran would like nothing better cuz they’d get more revenue that way. The US would then have to enter the conflict to restore security in the Gulf. Sympathetic Iranian supporters in all the countries bordering Israel would also cause trouble. Russia would get behind Iran in the same manner the US got behind Georgia and if the US dare use Georgian Bases to help strike Iran, I see Russia selling more SAM systems to Iran. A whole lot more. The Russians won’t mind selling a lot more either seeing that Israel’s Military officials helped strengthen the Georgian Military personnel. So it’s one big mess. Even if Iran went Nuclear, they won’t dare attack Israel cuz the US and the rest of the world would retaliate so that’s all talk to shore their political base at home. Israel would strike but I really think the US would stop them, they already have enough crap to deal with around the world.