« Previous · Home · Next »
The Genesis of a Deep Penetration Raid
By John
**Two Notes** This map is best viewed using Firefox. Second, I know that the first line of attack arrow is a little off, stemming from the Sinai instead of the Negev... I think when movable type resized the picture, the arrows shifted a bit to the right.
I put together this battle map as a means to convey how difficult it would be for Israel to succesfully execute an airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities. This is a scenario that I wargamed myself, based on the geo-political situation in the middle east, the location of air defense facilities, logical refueling points, and distance to targets. Note that I said this type of operation would be difficult, not impossible.
I narrowed down the aim points to 4 must-hit targets. The experimental reactor at Bushehr, the uranium processing and enrichment facilities at Isfahan and Nataz, and the Arak heavy water facility. All of these facilities would have to be destroyed for Israel to call this a successful mission. The remainder of even one of these facilities would limit the "set-back" effect that the strikes would have on the Iranians nuclear development program.
I chose the air-to-air refueling points based on distance and airspace. The Israelis exploited Saudi airspace in 1982 during Operation Opera in 1982, where they disabled Saddam's nuclear program. Because the Saudi northwest is a broad, open area that is difficult to completely cover with ground based radar, I find this to be the most logical Israeli strike lane and refueling area. However, as the Saudis now have AWACs airborne radar systems, the effectiveness of this particular refueling track could be negated.
You'll note that the strike route respects air defenses and radar more than it respects borders. The name of the game is to stay outside or below Saudi coverage. While it is unlikely that the Saudis would tip off the Iranians to a strike, they are unlikely to sit back and watch as the hated Israelis penetrate their airspace. Surprise and stealth is paramount.
While the Saudi desert may be an optimal refueling area, the gulf is a far less-friendly environment, as it is in close-proximity to the Iranian tactical airbase at Bushehr, which hosts F-14s and F-4 D/E fighters. It is also subject to thorough radar coverage from Saudi and Kuwait, as well as coalition warships and aircraft operating in the area. However due to the distance that Israeli jets must cover from the coast of Iran to targets as far away as Nataz, refueling here could be a necessity. I would suspect that if this particular path was chosen, the coalition would have to play along with an Israeli song and dance deception routine --such as phoney transponders or mimicing the routes of coalition air patrols-- in order to trick both the Iranians and Saudis.
As for the attack itself, like most military operations, timing would be critical. The Israelis would have to top off their deep penetration aircraft first, sending them below radar coverage towards the three deep targets: Nataz, Arak, and Isfahan. A secondary, smaller strike package would refuel second, then sweeping out to neutralize Bushehr. F-15 strike eagles, which are superb air-to-ground attack aircraft, would be the most likely candidates to execute the ground attack portion of the mission. Some could be used in a SEAD (supression of enemy air defenses) mission as well, as Iran is equipped with state-of-the-art Russian surface to air missiles.
Look to the new F-16Is to clear lanes of travel for the attack aircraft, or even attack Iranian airfields, to negate the air-to-air threat. And as you can see from the map, that threat is considerable. Iran has literally hundreds of fighter aircraft within range of its nuclear facilities. Surprise, the most important element in warfare, will obviously be imperative.
Getting home will be almost as difficult as the attack itself. I suspect that if Israel chooses to escape through northern Saudi, even more aircraft would be dispatched to clear safe travel lanes over the desert. The strike aircraft will also need to refuel one -possibly two more times- just to make it back to Israel proper.
Bottom line: difficult but not impossible. Entebbe, Dawn in '67, and Opera in '82 have proven that there is virtually no limit to Israel's boldness in the skies. We can expect any operation against Iran to be well-conceived, tactically sound, and incredibly daring. We can also expect it to be successful.
Just to clarify once more, this is nothing more than an elementary exercise in wargaming, used to demonstrate the difficulty in executing such a mission.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Israel execute something far more complex, or -better yet- something far more simple, to achieve their objectives.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/358
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Genesis of a Deep Penetration Raid:
» cargo,cargo bay slides,continental airlines cargo,cargo van,where the distance of these ports to major cargo gene, from cargo,cargo bay slides,continental airlines cargo,cargo van,where the distance of these ports to major cargo gene,
[Read More]
» ballet,ballet clothes,portable ballet bars,san antonio ballet,sacramento ballet nutcracker, from ballet,ballet clothes,portable ballet bars,san antonio ballet,sacramento ballet nutcracker,
[Read More]
Comments
grif...unlikely. The US would be unlikely to authorize an air raid over what is supposed to be sovereign airspace in Iraq. A it would certainly bring into question the legitimacy of the Iraq government.
well thought out and strategized. Seeing it visually helps. Where did you get the locations of Iranian air bases?
global security gave me the coordinates and I used acme maps to visualize the numbers...
Why not ask KSA for permission to use air space? They are as eager to see Iran set back as anybody. And they can always deny involvement...AWACS in for maintenance.
Despite recent articles, I still find an IDF attack on Iran unlikely, but the situation could change quickly in the coming days. Reportedly, Hezbollah announced they will give the people of Tel Aviv one hour to escape before the city is targeted. This would certainly be a game changer if it happens.
If a missile or rocket attack on Tel Aviv does occur, one ex-IDF blogger, Yoni Tidi, reports that the IDF will strike Syria and Iran. He's had accurate information so far so I find his information credible. If an attack does occur, I think the IDF should concentrate on Syria. If the that regime falls, it leaves Iran totally isolated.
We need finality in the Middle East.
So... what's the range of a Jerico II missile again?
From and open source, so credibility is questionable:Some reports claim there are two separate missile systems under development, the Jericho 2 with a 800 km range and the Jericho 2B with an extended 1,500 km range. The range of this missile is frequently reported as about 1,500 km with a 1,000 kg payload, but other estimates suggest that it is capable of a much longer range. Also, seeing as Iraq is a soverign (Haha) government, couldn't Israel request (through the US)for airspace?
Wouldn't a missile strike from a submarine in the Persian Gulf be a better option?
sure, surgdoc, if you can think of any subs that fire bunker busting cruise missiles.
Don't the Israelis have sublaunched munitions? A sublaunched cruise missle would be far more 'doable' than the intricate ballet required to do multi-instance refueling of attack aircraft into and out of Iran.
Saudi radar may not have been able to detect the Israelis in 1982, but this is now 2006. What about added capability in the mean-time?
Likewise, if the Iranians launch missles from Iran to hit Israel, everybody is going to get upset at Iran really fast. Are the Iranians dumb enough to do that?
I would tank further east, just north of Qatar maybe. Slightly longer trip but less Iranian air coverage.
Hitting Bushehr is also a huge risk because of the possibility of massive nuclear fallout. It's an operation PWR nuclear reactor. Not saying Israel wouldn't hit it, but it's something to think about. If the Israelis do hit Bushehr, it's an easy target. It's above ground, it's big, and it's tough to protect. Four bombers with two wild weasels would probably do the trick.
The tough thing is the other targets. I think your target point markers shifted to the left on the map, I was under the impression that Nataz and Isfahan were more central in Iran. I'd want to penetrate between bushehr and bandar abbas. It's closer to the Hormuz and commercial flight paths, so there'd be more radar clutter.
By the way, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Gillerman I think his name is, said that if missiles hit Tel Aviv it would be "doomsday" for Iran and Syria. That sounds like nukes to me.
I think that B-1's, B-2's, Tomahawks...
M-1's, Bradleys, LAV's, Mechanized, Marines, Airborne...
launching from Iraq is the best strategy.
These people need a good butt kicking!
Eric, surgdoc. Subs would obviously be optimal, but I *believe* that Gozor is correct, bunker busting munitions would be needed here. Particularly in Nataz...
But, like I said, this is just an elementary experimentation in wargaming....I'd be interested to hear other strategies...
Well, commandos are out. It's too far away and extraction would be near-impossible. Jerichos can't carry the right payloads if we want to keep this conventional. I doubt Israel would want to commit its few subs to the Gulf to fire off cruise missiles that probably wouldn't be able to do enough damage. The only option would seem to be an airstrike, unless Israel has a spy in Bushehr who pulls a James Bond or something.
A civilian doofus's question:
This Bushehr (ironic name!) reactor. If the IDF took that out, would that turn off the electricity to the whole damn country, including all the known and unknown nuke plants? Any other power generating dams and plants to hit? Resevoirs? The aim would be to render that malignant regime harmless, by paralysing their country.
Like I wrote yesterday, I don't believe destroying the nuke plants is good enough, even if it could be accomplished.
Three more points that you need to consider in the planning that will affect your routing and assumptions.
First is the difference between tactical surprise and strategic surprise. It's probably not possible to achieve strategic surprise in this case.
Second is the A/Rs. You'll need twice as much gas on the inbound legs as the outbound legs as the F-16s will be real gas hogs with all the externals strapped on them. Outbound, the jets that didn't release can jettison in the gulf. Also, tanking within EW range of Iran is silly.
Third, we control the airspace in the gulf. Once the strike forces are feet wet pursuit will be unlikely. It is well know that the USAF has been slavering for the iranians to "come out and play" for years. You could file this under the "Go ahead, make my day" category. The Israelis will use us to delouse the strikers.
Hmmm......
If I were an Israeli operations planner, I would be wary of overflying Saudi Arabia - and VERY wary of overflying Iraq without explicit American approval. Too much risk of being shot out of the sky.
I think that a more likely scenario is the war expanding from Lebanon to Syria, then the Iranians jump in.
Which would open up a potential causus belli for the United States to intervene....and we don't just have bases in Iraq, but carriers in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea as well. Enough firepower to take out a full target list.
See what happens when you have a small country with no power projection capable vessels in their navy?
I think I see a very short timeline until the IDF starts buying MV-22 Ospreys and dual-use F/A-18s... not to mention getting one of our old scrapped carriers on a lend-lease arrangement.
Oh, blockading Iranian ports or using their subs to put a smackdown onto the Iranian shipping capability might not be out of the question. In a shooting sub vs. sub conflict, I put the Israelis far out ahead of the Iranian Kilo-class subs based on their electronic sonar suites. Then again, the Iranians do have P-3 patrol planes... but their training sucks.
No way could or should Iraq allow Israel into its airspace. Talking about losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people! If it came out that IAF jets traversed Iraqi airspace on the way to or from Iran it would reverse everything we've tried to do since 9/11.
If Israel (or US) would block Iranian ports, the price of oil goes up and,hence, public support drops.
Thinking aloud again.
From reviewing this map at least, and all the comments, I note several substantial obstacles to over come and a couple of questions not being asked.
How are the Iranians supplying the Syrians (aka Hezbollah)? It can be of only three ways; a, they ship it all the way around to Syria. B, they fly it to them, over flying either Iraqi or Turkey. C, they truck it to them through Iraq or Turkey. (Not counting camels or donkeys)
The US can control the shipping lanes, no problem, can control over flight of Iraq as well as trucking lanes in Iraq, which leaves Turkey in question. Not really but never know.
Shipping via ground seems to be unreasonable but them I haven’t been there on the ground to confirm. I would think there are commercial flight ways between the two, to which it would be possible to short ship directly. And then shipping, have we been stopping Iranian ships of war in and out of the gulf much less cargo ships?
Although we are all aware Iran is pulling the strings, for the Israelis to really go after them they would have to jeopardize all political options to them and go “maverick” and risk regional war, giving the Iranians exactly what they want (to place blame on the Israelis and rally their Muslim brothers) (in our planning we must not forget the world political consequences) and making them the “good guys”
I would reason to believe the only positive outcome both militarily and politically is the Israelis will have to dismantle Hezbollah, insert either Lebanese Army in the south or as it is appearing an international contingent in similar fashion to the MFO “Sinai” as a buffer.
If Syria gets involved they just make a right hand turn to Damascus, The escalation puts the Assam regime in Damascus in serious and tenuous position and could collapse them if the IDF did not crush them. If the Iranians intercede they would have to cross Iraq and turkey. (That draws the U.S. and Turks into the fight. Again regional conflict caused by their border crossing.)
If that where to happen that would isolate the Iranians leaving only the Chinese and Russians with their backs politically or physically. However U.S. pressure would have the Chinese become very hands off, shut off the oil and their economy suffers hard what would be their retaliation? I’m sure they would perhaps saber rattle about Taiwan? The Russians would be more complex, perhaps?, if we shut down Iranian oil the Russians would benefit as demand for theirs would rise, might be a trade off for them, and they might have to give up on the nuclear sales, but hey oil is up!
Iran is stirring the kettle but does not want to rock the boat to hard, or they could become isolated to soon for their plans. They are even purported to be saying it would stop if a prisoner swap occurred, they have showed their hand. As they do not have the ability to intercede in Lebanon or Syria with out regional conflict which puts them in the wrong. To be in the right they must goad the Israelis into the escalation even though Hezbollah started it. The Israelis control the deck, they just crush Hezbollah and back off and that leaves the Iranians out of the mix. Other wise it is being escalated by the Iranians and that won’t play well.
If regional conflict does erupt and the IDF is already in Syria would they need to fly to Iran, or would the U.S. have already handled those targets? Just asking!
Just thinking.
Saber 2
If it were me planning out an Israeli attack to defang Iran, I'd use the Jericho IIs (IIRC they have the range) and possibly cruise missiles from the Dolphins (subs), all nuclear tipped. I would aim at Iran's nuclear facility, a few key bases (particularly Pasdaran facilities) and Tehran itself. What's the saying, "when you strike at a king, be sure to kill him"?
Then I'd plot the Syrian attack, which would also be nuclear. For that one, I'd aim at Damascus, missile units, armored units close to the border and air bases. To the extent that Syria's chemical and biological facilities are not co-located with the above targets, I'd hit them too.
Hitting Iran would probably take 15-25 weapons, assuming they all work, double that for much better reliability. Hitting Syria would probably take more, depending on how had you want to hit them. That's a significant fraction (between all and half, depending on whose estimates you believe) of Israel's nuclear weapons, by the way.
Israel cannot take Iran out of the game conventionally, and it will only have one shot to take out its enemies with nuclear weapons. After that, the vaunted international community will be shutting Israel down hard, and its strategic position to feed and fuel itself will become very, very dicey. In that case, you have to do it all, or you've lost your power while still leaving an enemy intact and on your border.
Hopefully, it will not come down to that.
1. First thing is there is a mistake in the main post: 7 June 1981 was the attack on the Osirak reactor, not 1982.
2. There is a mention of "hundreds of Iranian fighters"- I am not sure which airframes you are discussing here. Many of their F-14 and F-4 are over 35 years old and not mission capable.
3. You reference that the Iranians possess the best Russian SAM batteries- not correct. The MTor system has not been delivered to the Iranians yet, an order for 19 batteries was consummated last year.
4. Seeing as how Saudi AWACS would pick up any infiltration and they have F-15s, seems to me it makes a lot more sense to ingress through Iraq. Iraq won't be happy about it, but they have no Air Force to interdict. If the US doesn't tell them what we see on our JSTARS, they may not even know where the IAF is.
Via Turkey. Israeli Allied military...
In spite of its government.
Turkey isn't as reliable an ally as it used to be Elliott.
Lt. Fishman:
How good are the Saudi AWACS troops? Didn't Saudi already have airborne radar assets in '81 when Israel cut accross northern SA to get to Osirak? By the time they detected the Israeli strike force, got political approval to fire, got their own fighters loaded up with real munitions, and got them off the ground (they're not on a war footing right now, this would take time), it might already be too late to intercept. The Saudis wouldn't be happy about it, but if Israel wanted to cut accross Saudi territory, particularly at night when pilots are probably sleeping, and airborne radar operators might be a little sluggish, I don't see the Saudis stopping them.
"War,what is it good for,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING,
War,I despise,
'Coz means destruction of innocent lives."
Before saying anyone needs their butt kicked, we sould smell our own and solve our stinking problems.War doesn't solve problems it creates more.Please think a million times b4 attacking any one or any country....if destruction must be done...it must be done economically...like done to the erstwhile Soviet Union[though I doubt its destruction was warranted].
Great blog!
krunzqmd focalijez tnkv dpxmcrwe hjvwkuytx wohlncjmt htpxqa
Joint Ethiopian And Somalia Govt. Forces Advance Towards Mogadishu..
Fuck you all, motherfuckes, go fuck yourself instead of thinking about WAR or KILLING, you guys really sucks, coz' you don't even know when it comes to killing a man point-to-point
What's the matter, GUYS, FUCK YOU ALL
I don't know about anyone else, but the reasoning in those last few comments really convinced me. (HTML needs a SARCASM tag..)
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
John,
What do you think the possibility of the USA putting pressure on Abdullah of Jordan to allow the Israelis airspace and then they fly right through Iraq (we do have air supremecy in Iraq, don't we?) Afterall, Abdullah's in a tedious position. The more Sharia law takes affect in the Mideast, the more likely that he goes bye-bye, and then lives a life of leisure like the Shah's children do here in the USof A. The people of Jordan might not like it, but Abdullah's military won't let them complain too much.