• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Asks for Bunker Buster

dontworrybehappy said:
The F-117 is not a fighter, it has absolutely not fighting capabilities, it is strictly a bomber. And it is a bomber that we have retired, or are in the process of retiring so I don't think Israel wants those.
Click to expand...
It is true that the F-117 is not a fighter. The "F" was intended to confuse. I think Israel would love to have them. We would not love to give them away.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you disagree? The occupying regime must be obliterated. Nice turn of phrase. Clearly that is intended to show a peaceful resolution to their differences...if you are an Islamist shill.
Click to expand...

and who's begging and demanding the USA to attack another country?

it ain't Iran.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
The F-117 is not a fighter, it has absolutely not fighting capabilities, it is strictly a bomber. And it is a bomber that we have retired, or are in the process of retiring so I don't think Israel wants those.
Click to expand...

I am aware that the F-117 is not a "fighter", but I am not the one who named it. Blame the misnomer on that individual, whomever they may be.

Other than the cost of up-keep, why would they not want them, they are still stealth and they do carry enough munitions and types of ammunition to take out Air Defence sites and I don't see any reason it could not carry a Deep Penetrator (not having worked on F-117s or Deep Penetrators, I have no first hand knowledge if the two systems can work together). A strike like what is being discussed would be a heck of lot easier with some F-117s than with F-15s and F-16s. Not having served with the Israelis (or against them), I am not for sure if they have any heavy bomber capabilities. They really haven't had much need for Strategic Bombers.

Since the draw down started after "Slick Willy" Clinton's election, the Air Force has had to prioritise it's budgeting. The have killed off ABCCC and several other programs. They want to retire the F-117 and A-10. See a trend here? Non-air-to-air fighters and support systems that do only one type of mission but do it extremely well and that mission is not Air-to-Air but Air-to-Ground and two of the systems ABCCC and A-10s are/were primarily for air-support of ground troops. The B-2 really made the F-117 a bit redundant for some missions, however for striking smaller, widely dispersed air defences and other targets, it still does a great job and a B-2 sortie would be overkill. There is still nothing better for killing tanks and convoys than an A-10. However, the Air Force over the last 20 years has been trying to move to multi-role variants of primarily fast Air-to-Air platforms or like the F-16, fast multi-role systems. They are still trying to acquire enough F-22s to replace the aging F-15 (which entered service in 1972 and many of the actual airframes are from that time period) and there was some talk of a "strike" version of the F-22 similar to the F-15E Stike Eagle. There is also joint development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, however, the development of it has only recently started and as we saw with the F-22, it could be 20+ years between initial contract and actually having them to use (assuming the sitting congress at that time actually funds acquisition, unlike the F-22).

If we really want to retire the F-117, why not allow trusted allies to have them? Currently, we are pretty much the only ones who have any stealth capability.
 
Last edited:
Back to the topic of Bunker Busters.... Israel might or might not need to buy them from USA after all...they have developed their own , they are the MPR-500 missiles, hope they are enough to do the job.

 
Last edited:
The notion of the US giving the Israelis bunker buster's is ridiculous, at best. The obvious conclusion is thew the US would have launched an attack by proxy and and attack is premature. Therfore it would be best of the US wants a war just to "belly up to the bar" and bomb the crap out of the place. If that is what they want.
 
^^^

Somehow some way it will happen... c'est la vie...
 
Thunder said:
somehow, someway, Israel is gonna get the USA to attack Iran for them.
Click to expand...

That appears to be the goal. So far it has not been effective.
 
Thunder said:
I expect Hezbollah to launch terrorist attacks in the USA, if we attack Iran for the Israelis.

so no, this would not be a good thing.
Click to expand...


your opinion.... it's out of our reach.... what will happen will happen... but I know what side I am in and that is not Iran. So.... let's wait and see...
 
Connery said:
To what ends MYA what ends.
Click to expand...


who knows...set things right....i guess leave the Middle Ages behind? who knows ...but along those lines
 
Mya said:
who knows...set things right....i guess leave the Middle Ages behind? who knows ...but along those lines
Click to expand...

Ok you and me we are sitting in our armchairs directing the flights.

Here is the map of possible targets:

120313090955-map-iran-potential-tar.jpg



Here are the flight plans:

120313091135-map-israel-flight-rout.jpg


"In order to create proper damage to the nuclear plants, you need extremely accurate weapons," Kam said. "I don't know that the missiles are accurate enough." According to the London-based defense analysis group Jane's, Israel has one squadron -- about 25 planes -- of F-15I jets, which are similar to the F-15 Eagle fighters of the U.S. Air Force. Israel calls its version of the fighter Raam, or Thunder. It has four squadrons of F-16Is, the Israeli version of the U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcon. The Israeli jet is known as the Suefa, or Storm."

The strike aircraft would carry bunker-busting GBU-28 bombs -- 5,000-pound bombs to "go after hardened and buried sites," Barrie said. Each F-15I could carry up to three bunker-busters, he said, depending on whether they are configured to carry the maximum number of bombs or the largest possible amount of fuel.

Dropping a bunker-busting bomb on Fordo actually might make it less vulnerable, Chorley said, since collapsing the entrance without destroying the facility would protect it from further bombing.
 "It's questionable whether Israel is capable of destroying it in an air-launched attack," she said. "Just getting Natanz and Arak without getting Fordo wouldn't be worth the risk," she argued, since Fordo is enriching uranium to higher levels than the other sites."
Israel would face challenge in bombing Iran nuclear sites, experts say - CNN.com

I have fought on much worthier fields of both battle and honor. I opt for the pressure unleashed by SN and would have some soup and a nice sandwich at a NY deli with a side of slaw.

SOUPNAZI.png
 
I think what I find the most interesting about this is that the people who say they are pro-Israel and want to attack Iran somehow don't comprehend that Israeli civilians will end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Since Iran cannot attack the US directly, they will attack US military bases in the region, but will also attack Israel as well. This won't be a normal attack, it will most likely be sustained for as long as possible and the opening salvos may be quite hard. Israeli civilians will most likely end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Thus, I must ask the people who want Iran to be attacked: Do you think it is worth it?
 
^^^

Life is an incomprehensible thing Mr. Invisible .... that's all we are, human beings.... otherwise we would be angels and be in heaven! :shrug:


But while on earth we must take sides!
 
Mya said:
^^^

Life is an incomprehensible thing Mr. Invisible .... that's all we are, human beings.... otherwise we would be angels and be in heaven! :shrug:


But while on earth we must take sides!
Click to expand...

sometimes, like this time, there are three sides.

not on the side of Israel and not on the side of Iran.

on the side of the USA.
 
Thunder said:
sometimes, like this time, there are three sides.

not on the side of Israel and not on the side of Iran.

on the side of the USA.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree... but Thunder... I thought USA was on Israel side?
 
Mya said:
Yes I agree... but Thunder... I thought USA was on Israel side?
Click to expand...

The US is on the US' side. Israel serves a good and strategic purpose.
 
Connery said:
The US is on the US' side. Israel serves a good and strategic purpose.
Click to expand...


Sorry you lost me there. Of course USA is on USA side. But USA has strategic partners and Israel is one of them, am I wrong? No I am not.
 
Mya said:
^^^

Life is an incomprehensible thing Mr. Invisible .... that's all we are, human beings.... otherwise we would be angels and be in heaven! :shrug:


But while on earth we must take sides!
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question.
 
Mya said:
Sorry you lost me there. Of course USA is on USA side. But USA has strategic partners and Israel is one of them, am I wrong? No I am not.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you. I am saying that as long as Israel serves good purpose for the US they will remain partners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom