The war with Iran proves once again the importance for Israel to have an American strategic bomber as part of the Israeli Air Force's aircraft arsenal.
As someone who remembered his "rise from 'the community'" into a life of "never ending progressive accolades and high priced dinners," I thought he was a big phony back then. And I have never changed my thinking.
I used to wonder guiltily why I kept having to think twice about mentioning either Osama Bin Laden or Barak Obama without switching them around or mixing them up... 🤔 🙄 😐 😑
Others have asked the same question--can't Israel retrofit a commercial jet, maybe even an old cargo plane, to do this? I admit that I have no idea what would be involved.
A C-130 could handle the weight and carry a single mop with an additional five tons to spare. Altitude would probably be limited to around 25k, and this transport aircraft is a sitting duck for anti-aircraft missiles. It does have the range to fly this distance, over 1,200 miles. Lots of details would remain too. Those extra details are above my expertise.
At some point the subsequent bombs just bounce the rubble, and rubble makes a terrific insulation against more bombs. Also, the bombs need to be spaced out temporarily so that they don't destroy each other before doing their damage.
In the battle between weapons and defenses, weapons always win.
Instead of getting into Fordow, just close it off. Bomb to destruction all the entry/exit points, power sources, air shafts, escape shafts, etc... Station guards around it for a year or so, then build the worlds biggest concrete cap over it.
Erect a sign with the poem Ozymandias, by Shelley on it. Or Sic Semper Tyrannis. Or both.
I agree. One bomb creates a crater. Repeated bombing at the same spot will enhance the size of the crater and gradually structures will implode on themselves.
as Doc points out, you need a large heavy object with a delayed fuse, hard cap, traveling from high altitude (eg very fast), to penetrate the rubble and get to the next increment of solid rock/concrete. rinse and repeat at the same spot (eg smart bomb)
putting a nozzle in the nose is easier than putting a huge bomb bay in the belly of the plane (without impacting structural integrity, landing gear, center of gravity, and control lines)
No. The MOP relies on it's launch (drop) altitude to accelerate to it's terminal velocity of approximately Mach 1, to produce the kinetic energy needed to 'punch' through the rock or concrete. Then the fuse detonates after it stops moving (that's as far as it's going).
So, it has to be dropped, from some considerable altitude (exact altitude classified and situationally dependent).
A cargo plane? I doubt the Iranians would allow a stray cargo plane to fly over the site. And a cargo plane lacks any sort of speed, or defensive capability
Absolutely. The US miscalculated on this one. If we truly want to be able to stay out of kinetic skirmishes, then the participants need to be able to do it themselves. Dumb decision on our part. This could have been very different.
But isnt the U.S. already deeply involved by supplying the Israelis with arms and intelligence? Loan them a B 52. Kind of like lend leases with the Brits.
For a number of very expensive and difficult to overcome technical reasons, starting with the fuselage is not strong enough to have a big hole cut into the bottom of it.
Back in the early 80's there were discussions of using the C5A, B747, DC-10, to launch ICBMs. Only the C5A, with the pre-existing big ramp in the back, was technically feasible. It was even done once (unarmed, of course)
I would respectfully disagree. It would be 1940s technology to reinforce parts of the airframe and cut the not so big hole for ejecting a couple of 30k# bombs. You might want to depressurize everything but the flight deck for simplicity.
I'd add a picture if I could but you can google the patent from June 24, 1980. Google: "747 bomber concept with rotary launcher".
It is not the best alternative for a MOP but if Israel had air supremacy, then this could be made to work. A drop from 50,000 ft at 500mph would mean minimum time in Iran. More realistic than acquiring a B-52.
=====
Large frame jets line 747, 787 are the future of the navy and maybe airforce. Operating at standoff range, this type of plane could launch dramatic numbers of AI drones anywhere on earth in hours.
Airplanes are built with stringers (metal parts that run the length of the airframe) and frames (more or less circular parts of varying diameters). Together with the skin they form a rigid structure, and steps can be made to leave room between the stringers for things like bomb bays.
Cutting an existing 747 up to make a bomb bay leaves a huge weak point. Can it be overcome? Maybe, probably, with sufficient reinforcement - but it's not a quick mod that can be done in a weekend. You would also have to develop a method to pressurize the flight deck since there is no pressure bulkhead there. Different engines that can operate higher than normal (45k is about max, but part of that is due to cabin pressurization differential).
And the 747 alternative was not taken seriously. The big airframe companies (Lockheed, Douglas, Boeing) in the 80's would come up with all sorts of attempts at selling more airframes. Douglas (I was a design engineer for a couple of years after I left AD and before med school) had the same idea with a DC-10, Lockheed offered the C5A. None were taken seriously for a variety of reasons: They were not fast enough, and there was no way to make them faster. They were not in any way stealthy, and could not be made so (while the B1B is not considered stealthy today it has a radar cross section of about 1/100th that of a B52), and simply didn't work.
The role at the time was for the B1B to be a low-level low supersonic (~Mach 1.4 or so) penetrating bomber/missile launcher. Not a missile launcher. Can we use a missile launcher now? Perhaps. We'd need better missiles.
But your claim about big airframes being the future is simply dangerously wrong.
Big airframes cost more than small airframes. So we buy fewer of them. A determination is made on how many notional missiles we might need to launch at a notional enemy, divide by the number a plane can launch and add a small fudge factor. Then add a large fudge factor because the idiots in congress who couldn't identify a GPS much less use one will decide that fewer is enough.
The problem with that is airplanes break. We may need to fight on two or more fronts. And most importantly, every asset is a target to our notional enemy, and if they destroy one, they have reduced our capability by a significant amount. For example the US has 11 aircraft carriers, if an enemy were to destroy one our capabilities would be significantly degraded world wide - not only because of the loss of 5000 lives, but the loss of the ship(s), the aircraft - all of which take YEARS to build.
So the better, more survivable plan is to satisfy 80-85% of the requirements with a smaller less expensive alternative, and find another way to achieve that last 15 - 20%. For example, a B52 holds around 45,000 gallons of fuel - but we don't need a tanker that can transfer 45,000 gallons. In reality a KC-135 can transfer 29,000 gallons or so. In practice, for mission planning a KC-135 meets a B52 and transfers maybe 10-15,000 gallons, they fly further along their mission and if needed meet another tanker. An 80% solution, because fulfilling that last 20% costs 90% of the total..
Perhaps Israel NEEDS a fleet of heavy bombers... Or at least heavy enough they can carry and launch such weapons.
Instead of a classic bomber design, or cutting a bomb bay into a transport aircraft, maybe attaching pylons to the outside of an aircraft would be easier. And/or a booster package that can take such a load (bomb with guidance), launch from something like standoff range and fly it up to a suitable altitude before the guidance package tips it down?
Certainly someone besides the US, Russia and China do, with right-thinking leadership.
First, thank you for taking the time to make this thoughtful and long reply. I'm about to do the same. It might take more than 1 reply to make sure I don't accidentally destroy part of the response along the way.
Your par 1-3: I did not mean that a weekend mod would make a transformed 747. Maybe a year. Maybe a bit less. A 747-8 has a carry of 140 tons. This is the secret to any conversion for a MOP alternative. A hollow airframe could be substantially reinforced with an internal skeleton that could hold a few MOPs and a bomb door assembly. I'd like to point out that a 747 was modified to carry a full space shuttle on its back! Pressuring a 747 flight deck is just a big welding job sealing the upper deck. It isn't rocket science and the unique structure of the 747 makes this quite easy. The upper deck is already pressureized, it is just a matter of sealing it in. Flying at 50,000 ft for a short period would not compromise the airframe. Pilots would likely need masks and the engines would have some difficulty. I only mentioned this stretch possibility because I do not know the caharacteristics of the MOP and what terminal velocity it really needs in the Iran scenario. I'm just saying that risks could be taken if really needed. It might well be that 500mph at 43,000ft would create the terminal velocity needed.
Your par 4-5: At the time Boeing did take it seriously and did do a series of designs and a fair amount of lobbying. It wasn't going to happen because it was still the time of penatration bombers and a 747 would never make that cut. But today and tomorrow aren't 1980.
Your par 6-8: First, the days of a penetration bomber are over and the B-21 is a plane that should never have been built. In uncontested space a B-21 isn't needed and in contested peer to peer space a B-21 is toast. B-21 will be awkwardly used as stand off platforms with sub optimal performance.
The future is the use of vast AI drones in missile and other form factors launched by planes at stand off distances. And commercial planes can be relatively simply modified to perform this function in ways a B-21 or naval cruiser ccould never do. Based on history, the B-21 will be like most modern bombers....huge amounts of ground time for each hour in the air. And lifetime limits a fraction of commercial airframes. A B1 life was expected to be around 10k hours over 30 years. B-21 is still not publishing hours or life cycles. A 787 is rated at 40,000 lifetime cycles which is likely an order of magnitude higher than a traditional bomber.
Commercial airframes will do more, cycle faster and be less expensive. Your comments about an aircraft carrier are exactly my point. In todays environment, we and they know where every ship is all the time. ALL THE TIME.
It would take China a year or so and $10 billion to create 100,000 ballistic drones. Now imagine a navy fleet facing 1,000 drones attacking over an hours time. Maybe they survive. But then another round of 1,000 drones comes in in hour 2. And every hour after. I'm not sure when, but pretty ssure that after hour 3, there isn't any ammunition of any type available. Hour 4 is a drone attack success.
The world has changed. But the navy hasn't. After a destroyer or cruiser uses all it's missiles, it has to go back to port for a reload! And flight ops on a carrier cannot perform in an attack that continues for hours. And 30 or 40 planes with 4 to 6 missiles isn't going to have much defensive impact. Naval future strategy is too much for this post but it will require a ground up rethink if China stays together. And that means planes that can bring firepower in size anywhere in hours and be easily reloaded and returned to service. Hours for planes and days to weeks for surface ships.
In a peer to peer siituation like China, slow moving things on water with limited defensive ammunition are targets.
Finally, I agree with your comments about the B-52. Except new B-52s are never going to be built. In 1 to 3 years, any Boeing airframe and GE engine could have production double or more. Way easier than relaunchhing a B-52.
We may get lucky and never have to fight a peer to peer war. It is our best outcome.
=====
As an additional aside, it is time to relook at 'rods from gods'. SpaceX economics have made the space based tungsten rod option very economical. And the price is going down as SpaceX gets the next gen rockets online. About 80% of the future production of the DOD is obsolete but no one will admit this.
Iran’s leadership just flew its equivalents of Air Force One leadership aircraft to Oman. We have no idea why, but your idea of using a 747 makes me wonder if Iran is thinking the same thing. Maybe in anticipation of Israel using a 747 to drop major ordnance, Iran is going to declare all of its airspace a free fire zone where they will attack any and all aircraft it can, and they needed to get the aircraft of their leadership out of there while they could. I don’t know that a 747 can attain the same altitude as a strategic bomber to remain safe from what remains of Iran’s air defenses.
With all due respect Ambassador, the premise that totally destroying Iran’s nuclear ambition is dependent on the need to borrow, rent, hire, charter, or lease a B-2 bomber may be a smoke screen. Surely there’s an entry to Fordow. If it’s not already guarded by Mossad agents, I have no doubt the Mossad can figure out how to gain entry and safely detonate Fordow. I’d call it my conspiracy theory only it hasn’t happened yet. No doubt Trump is loving the power in his hands at the moment.
Israel, and the 'peans, are buying the Airbus 330 MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker/Transport), also known as the KC-45.
This is the aircraft that was selected for the US Air Force KC-135 replacement, ahead of Boeings KC-46. Senator John McCain screwed the US (again), because it wasn't US made enough and had the contract cancelled. Then we got stuck (After another round where only Boeing competed) with the KC-46, which has suffered from significant quality issues on build (drug paraphernalia, alcohol bottles, lunch residue and other trash left in fuel tanks?) and failure to meet contract specs on teh tanker camera system and HF radios.
I've been pointing out for weeks that in WW2 before the US entered the war Roosevelt leased the UK over 50 warships and sold them weapons. Trump just needs to follow this Democrats precedent and lease a few B52's to Israel. Glad to see Trump may be considering.
There are currently 12 of them at the David-Monthan Air Force Base Boneyard in Tucson, AZ under the 309th Aerospace Maintenance group. Not sure of the condition, but they have 4,000 aircraft, and 6,650 engines. Perhaps if Israel is still looking for one, they could contact them.
or at least only the B2 was ever certified to drop the GBU-57. Both the B1 and B52 have the needed ceiling and gross carrying capacity, but likely no place to put the thing, eg the B1 has 3 internal bomb bays and 6 hard point, none likely rated for 30k of unbalancedload
Biden Administration? It was the third Obama Administration, packed with Israeli haters. We cognoscenti referred to it as the O’Biden Administration.
As time goes on I realize more and more how bloody awful Obama was. In soooo many ways.
As someone who remembered his "rise from 'the community'" into a life of "never ending progressive accolades and high priced dinners," I thought he was a big phony back then. And I have never changed my thinking.
Check trump’s latest TRUTH social post on obama
I used to wonder guiltily why I kept having to think twice about mentioning either Osama Bin Laden or Barak Obama without switching them around or mixing them up... 🤔 🙄 😐 😑
You are so right !!
Am Yisrael Chai 🇮🇱
Others have asked the same question--can't Israel retrofit a commercial jet, maybe even an old cargo plane, to do this? I admit that I have no idea what would be involved.
A C-130 could handle the weight and carry a single mop with an additional five tons to spare. Altitude would probably be limited to around 25k, and this transport aircraft is a sitting duck for anti-aircraft missiles. It does have the range to fly this distance, over 1,200 miles. Lots of details would remain too. Those extra details are above my expertise.
From what I have read, dropping the bomb from a ramp is not enough.
The article did not elaborate further.
What about 15 or so simultaneous and concurrent precisely aimed 2000 pounders from available aircraft? Just a thought.
At some point the subsequent bombs just bounce the rubble, and rubble makes a terrific insulation against more bombs. Also, the bombs need to be spaced out temporarily so that they don't destroy each other before doing their damage.
If that was possible wouldn’t Israel have already done it?
Yes. That’s how they got Nasrallah who was only 60 feet/meters (?) deep. Fordow is half a mile.
In the battle between weapons and defenses, weapons always win.
Instead of getting into Fordow, just close it off. Bomb to destruction all the entry/exit points, power sources, air shafts, escape shafts, etc... Station guards around it for a year or so, then build the worlds biggest concrete cap over it.
Erect a sign with the poem Ozymandias, by Shelley on it. Or Sic Semper Tyrannis. Or both.
without HVAC, sooner or later enough gaseous uranium from the centrifuges is going to leak and fill the air system.
problem solved
You know, that would truly suck for them
Anyway.
"Look upon my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
No not necessarily because of the necessary tactical logistics and coordination for such an attack.
I agree. One bomb creates a crater. Repeated bombing at the same spot will enhance the size of the crater and gradually structures will implode on themselves.
No, the rubble insulates that which it covers.
as Doc points out, you need a large heavy object with a delayed fuse, hard cap, traveling from high altitude (eg very fast), to penetrate the rubble and get to the next increment of solid rock/concrete. rinse and repeat at the same spot (eg smart bomb)
Not much good if you can’t get it out
Israel has successfully retrofit large commercial planes for midair refueling. With air defenses destroyed stealth isn’t a necessity.
putting a nozzle in the nose is easier than putting a huge bomb bay in the belly of the plane (without impacting structural integrity, landing gear, center of gravity, and control lines)
No. The MOP relies on it's launch (drop) altitude to accelerate to it's terminal velocity of approximately Mach 1, to produce the kinetic energy needed to 'punch' through the rock or concrete. Then the fuse detonates after it stops moving (that's as far as it's going).
So, it has to be dropped, from some considerable altitude (exact altitude classified and situationally dependent).
A cargo plane? I doubt the Iranians would allow a stray cargo plane to fly over the site. And a cargo plane lacks any sort of speed, or defensive capability
Some speculation along those lines here. https://www.twz.com/air/could-israeli-c-130s-drop-gbu-57-massive-ordnance-penetrator-bunker-busters
Absolutely. The US miscalculated on this one. If we truly want to be able to stay out of kinetic skirmishes, then the participants need to be able to do it themselves. Dumb decision on our part. This could have been very different.
Maybe they Israelis have been trained in advance and the planes will be flown by them?
There is an Israeli surprise every day!
Wish it were so, but there's no indication that it is. And yes, I expect a surprise resolution.
Wish it
But isnt the U.S. already deeply involved by supplying the Israelis with arms and intelligence? Loan them a B 52. Kind of like lend leases with the Brits.
I never did understand why we didn't convert one of our 747s ...seems a solvable problem.
For a number of very expensive and difficult to overcome technical reasons, starting with the fuselage is not strong enough to have a big hole cut into the bottom of it.
Back in the early 80's there were discussions of using the C5A, B747, DC-10, to launch ICBMs. Only the C5A, with the pre-existing big ramp in the back, was technically feasible. It was even done once (unarmed, of course)
I would respectfully disagree. It would be 1940s technology to reinforce parts of the airframe and cut the not so big hole for ejecting a couple of 30k# bombs. You might want to depressurize everything but the flight deck for simplicity.
I'd add a picture if I could but you can google the patent from June 24, 1980. Google: "747 bomber concept with rotary launcher".
It is not the best alternative for a MOP but if Israel had air supremacy, then this could be made to work. A drop from 50,000 ft at 500mph would mean minimum time in Iran. More realistic than acquiring a B-52.
=====
Large frame jets line 747, 787 are the future of the navy and maybe airforce. Operating at standoff range, this type of plane could launch dramatic numbers of AI drones anywhere on earth in hours.
A purpose built airframe, not a mod.
Airplanes are built with stringers (metal parts that run the length of the airframe) and frames (more or less circular parts of varying diameters). Together with the skin they form a rigid structure, and steps can be made to leave room between the stringers for things like bomb bays.
Cutting an existing 747 up to make a bomb bay leaves a huge weak point. Can it be overcome? Maybe, probably, with sufficient reinforcement - but it's not a quick mod that can be done in a weekend. You would also have to develop a method to pressurize the flight deck since there is no pressure bulkhead there. Different engines that can operate higher than normal (45k is about max, but part of that is due to cabin pressurization differential).
And the 747 alternative was not taken seriously. The big airframe companies (Lockheed, Douglas, Boeing) in the 80's would come up with all sorts of attempts at selling more airframes. Douglas (I was a design engineer for a couple of years after I left AD and before med school) had the same idea with a DC-10, Lockheed offered the C5A. None were taken seriously for a variety of reasons: They were not fast enough, and there was no way to make them faster. They were not in any way stealthy, and could not be made so (while the B1B is not considered stealthy today it has a radar cross section of about 1/100th that of a B52), and simply didn't work.
The role at the time was for the B1B to be a low-level low supersonic (~Mach 1.4 or so) penetrating bomber/missile launcher. Not a missile launcher. Can we use a missile launcher now? Perhaps. We'd need better missiles.
But your claim about big airframes being the future is simply dangerously wrong.
Big airframes cost more than small airframes. So we buy fewer of them. A determination is made on how many notional missiles we might need to launch at a notional enemy, divide by the number a plane can launch and add a small fudge factor. Then add a large fudge factor because the idiots in congress who couldn't identify a GPS much less use one will decide that fewer is enough.
The problem with that is airplanes break. We may need to fight on two or more fronts. And most importantly, every asset is a target to our notional enemy, and if they destroy one, they have reduced our capability by a significant amount. For example the US has 11 aircraft carriers, if an enemy were to destroy one our capabilities would be significantly degraded world wide - not only because of the loss of 5000 lives, but the loss of the ship(s), the aircraft - all of which take YEARS to build.
So the better, more survivable plan is to satisfy 80-85% of the requirements with a smaller less expensive alternative, and find another way to achieve that last 15 - 20%. For example, a B52 holds around 45,000 gallons of fuel - but we don't need a tanker that can transfer 45,000 gallons. In reality a KC-135 can transfer 29,000 gallons or so. In practice, for mission planning a KC-135 meets a B52 and transfers maybe 10-15,000 gallons, they fly further along their mission and if needed meet another tanker. An 80% solution, because fulfilling that last 20% costs 90% of the total..
It's not a quick mod that can be done in a weekend ... but certainly quicker than waiting 12 years for nothing ... or never being able to buy a B52.
Perhaps Israel NEEDS a fleet of heavy bombers... Or at least heavy enough they can carry and launch such weapons.
Instead of a classic bomber design, or cutting a bomb bay into a transport aircraft, maybe attaching pylons to the outside of an aircraft would be easier. And/or a booster package that can take such a load (bomb with guidance), launch from something like standoff range and fly it up to a suitable altitude before the guidance package tips it down?
Certainly someone besides the US, Russia and China do, with right-thinking leadership.
India?
1/
First, thank you for taking the time to make this thoughtful and long reply. I'm about to do the same. It might take more than 1 reply to make sure I don't accidentally destroy part of the response along the way.
Your par 1-3: I did not mean that a weekend mod would make a transformed 747. Maybe a year. Maybe a bit less. A 747-8 has a carry of 140 tons. This is the secret to any conversion for a MOP alternative. A hollow airframe could be substantially reinforced with an internal skeleton that could hold a few MOPs and a bomb door assembly. I'd like to point out that a 747 was modified to carry a full space shuttle on its back! Pressuring a 747 flight deck is just a big welding job sealing the upper deck. It isn't rocket science and the unique structure of the 747 makes this quite easy. The upper deck is already pressureized, it is just a matter of sealing it in. Flying at 50,000 ft for a short period would not compromise the airframe. Pilots would likely need masks and the engines would have some difficulty. I only mentioned this stretch possibility because I do not know the caharacteristics of the MOP and what terminal velocity it really needs in the Iran scenario. I'm just saying that risks could be taken if really needed. It might well be that 500mph at 43,000ft would create the terminal velocity needed.
2/
Your par 4-5: At the time Boeing did take it seriously and did do a series of designs and a fair amount of lobbying. It wasn't going to happen because it was still the time of penatration bombers and a 747 would never make that cut. But today and tomorrow aren't 1980.
Your par 6-8: First, the days of a penetration bomber are over and the B-21 is a plane that should never have been built. In uncontested space a B-21 isn't needed and in contested peer to peer space a B-21 is toast. B-21 will be awkwardly used as stand off platforms with sub optimal performance.
The future is the use of vast AI drones in missile and other form factors launched by planes at stand off distances. And commercial planes can be relatively simply modified to perform this function in ways a B-21 or naval cruiser ccould never do. Based on history, the B-21 will be like most modern bombers....huge amounts of ground time for each hour in the air. And lifetime limits a fraction of commercial airframes. A B1 life was expected to be around 10k hours over 30 years. B-21 is still not publishing hours or life cycles. A 787 is rated at 40,000 lifetime cycles which is likely an order of magnitude higher than a traditional bomber.
Commercial airframes will do more, cycle faster and be less expensive. Your comments about an aircraft carrier are exactly my point. In todays environment, we and they know where every ship is all the time. ALL THE TIME.
3/ continued...
It would take China a year or so and $10 billion to create 100,000 ballistic drones. Now imagine a navy fleet facing 1,000 drones attacking over an hours time. Maybe they survive. But then another round of 1,000 drones comes in in hour 2. And every hour after. I'm not sure when, but pretty ssure that after hour 3, there isn't any ammunition of any type available. Hour 4 is a drone attack success.
The world has changed. But the navy hasn't. After a destroyer or cruiser uses all it's missiles, it has to go back to port for a reload! And flight ops on a carrier cannot perform in an attack that continues for hours. And 30 or 40 planes with 4 to 6 missiles isn't going to have much defensive impact. Naval future strategy is too much for this post but it will require a ground up rethink if China stays together. And that means planes that can bring firepower in size anywhere in hours and be easily reloaded and returned to service. Hours for planes and days to weeks for surface ships.
In a peer to peer siituation like China, slow moving things on water with limited defensive ammunition are targets.
Finally, I agree with your comments about the B-52. Except new B-52s are never going to be built. In 1 to 3 years, any Boeing airframe and GE engine could have production double or more. Way easier than relaunchhing a B-52.
We may get lucky and never have to fight a peer to peer war. It is our best outcome.
=====
As an additional aside, it is time to relook at 'rods from gods'. SpaceX economics have made the space based tungsten rod option very economical. And the price is going down as SpaceX gets the next gen rockets online. About 80% of the future production of the DOD is obsolete but no one will admit this.
=====
Thanks again for the comment.
Iran’s leadership just flew its equivalents of Air Force One leadership aircraft to Oman. We have no idea why, but your idea of using a 747 makes me wonder if Iran is thinking the same thing. Maybe in anticipation of Israel using a 747 to drop major ordnance, Iran is going to declare all of its airspace a free fire zone where they will attack any and all aircraft it can, and they needed to get the aircraft of their leadership out of there while they could. I don’t know that a 747 can attain the same altitude as a strategic bomber to remain safe from what remains of Iran’s air defenses.
With all due respect Ambassador, the premise that totally destroying Iran’s nuclear ambition is dependent on the need to borrow, rent, hire, charter, or lease a B-2 bomber may be a smoke screen. Surely there’s an entry to Fordow. If it’s not already guarded by Mossad agents, I have no doubt the Mossad can figure out how to gain entry and safely detonate Fordow. I’d call it my conspiracy theory only it hasn’t happened yet. No doubt Trump is loving the power in his hands at the moment.
I deem the most primitive "conspiracy theorist" to be more enlightened than the most sophisticated of conspiracy deniers.
Even if you cannot reach the inner facility, Ill bet the Israelis coulddestroy the surface to entomb them without water, elightricity or even air.
Yes, all of this talk of bombers could be yet another smokescreen.
I think it is possible to UBER a B-52?
I could be wrong.
Bust the Bunker!
MISA — Make Iran Sane Again!
Go for the Uber Premium! Get a B1B
For all the money "we" spent on Kanaf Zion, Boeing could have thrown in a bomb-bay.
The way Boeing builds these days, you're lucky you got something that flies.
Hmm... maybe Airbus has an aircraft to spare that could be modified.
Israel, and the 'peans, are buying the Airbus 330 MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker/Transport), also known as the KC-45.
This is the aircraft that was selected for the US Air Force KC-135 replacement, ahead of Boeings KC-46. Senator John McCain screwed the US (again), because it wasn't US made enough and had the contract cancelled. Then we got stuck (After another round where only Boeing competed) with the KC-46, which has suffered from significant quality issues on build (drug paraphernalia, alcohol bottles, lunch residue and other trash left in fuel tanks?) and failure to meet contract specs on teh tanker camera system and HF radios.
I wonder if Boeing paid McCain sufficiently?
😂
You were right.
100% Agree. Even if Trump helps this time, who knows about the next Administration.
I've been pointing out for weeks that in WW2 before the US entered the war Roosevelt leased the UK over 50 warships and sold them weapons. Trump just needs to follow this Democrats precedent and lease a few B52's to Israel. Glad to see Trump may be considering.
There are currently 12 of them at the David-Monthan Air Force Base Boneyard in Tucson, AZ under the 309th Aerospace Maintenance group. Not sure of the condition, but they have 4,000 aircraft, and 6,650 engines. Perhaps if Israel is still looking for one, they could contact them.
Why purchase only one B-52?
https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/israeli-secret-services-used-fake-phone-call-to-lure-irans-air-force-elite-to-their-deaths-ejqk7guy
I have read claims that even a B52 cannot carry the necessary ordnance. Please research and clarify.
Right. Only a B-2 can carry the MOP.
or at least only the B2 was ever certified to drop the GBU-57. Both the B1 and B52 have the needed ceiling and gross carrying capacity, but likely no place to put the thing, eg the B1 has 3 internal bomb bays and 6 hard point, none likely rated for 30k of unbalancedload
We can only depend on ourselves, here too.
I long for the day when Israel realizes that the democrat party hates them and works incessantly to weaken and undermine them.