US may sell Israel advanced ‘bunker-busters’ enabling Iran strike

[Johnny Rico]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-might-sell-israel-special-bunker-busters/

The US might sell Israel special arms and munitions that would enable an Israeli strike on Iran, an unnamed senior military source told Army Radio Tuesday night.

According to the report, although the two countries did not agree on specific red lines regarding Iran’s nuclear program during meetings in Washington, the US understands Israel’s position and is considering selling it advanced weapons that could be used to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, including special bunker-busting bombs and re-fueling planes.

In an interview with Army Radio on Wednesday, National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror declined to discuss reports of the weapons transfer. Amidror did not deny that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has a difference of opinion with the Mossad over a strike on Iran, but noted that as the country’s leader, it is his job to choose what he believes is the best course of action.

(more at link)

[snappyturtle]

1. Might sell? I think it is a given that we will sell.

After the sale, we'll have to send advisors to back up the sale. It's a back door method of being
involved without actually flying the planes and the sales will keep our MIC happy too! imho

[Vincardog]

2. Bunker Busters will not work the US admits that they can not damage the Iranian nuke program

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Not entirely true

[Vincardog]

7. The Nation reports that it is

US 'bunker-buster' not powerful enough against Iran's tough N. sites: Report

[link:http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/30-Jan-2012/us-bunker-buster-not-powerful-enough-against-irans-tough-n-sites-report|

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. The Nation is not where to go for good weapons information

Iran went deep with its bunkers. They are also buying newer very high end concrete, which is not controlled and on the open market. The result is deep installations that are harder to crack. Exact specs are unavailable, but there is general agreement that they are not going to be one shot kills like many of the Iraqi facilities were.

That said, a key point is that a weapon does not have to detonate inside the capsule to destroy it. Shock waves will dismount/destroy equipment, injure people, and collapse access tunnels. Also successive strikes will be more effective. and after several the capsule may well be breached

Finally there is the experience factor. Iranian efforts in many areas to date lack sufficient discipline to execute things properly. There are those who think our current weapons will take out the bunkers since the Iranians probably did not build it optimally. My personal experience says that there may be some merit to that.

So multiple shots/destroying access tunnels/poor building all in some measure could allow aerial bombardment to be successful at a practical level. However, we won't know until it is tried.

What has also gone unnoticed by the M$M is that Israel has also announced its own line of hardened target bombs...it was in the trade rags. However none are super deep penetrators.

The Nation and other M$M ran with the sound bite, the truth is much more subtle.

[FarCenter]

20. Super deep penetrators seem to be heavier that Israeli airplanes could manage

They would be carried by B-2 bombers.

Unless there were a vigorous air defense suppression campaign first, B-52 or B-1s would be too vulnerable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. There is no reason it could not be deployed in some fashion from a C-130 like MOAB

None of the really heavy stuff fits on tactical aircraft. Any of these kind of operations and require local air superiority and serious SEAD.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

4. Perhaps tactical nukes would come into play? nt

[FarCenter]

5. Does Israel have the neutron bomb

A nuclear device which produces a very high neutron flux with relatively small blast effect.

Neutrons penetrate though most materials, and the radiation passing through an under-mountain chamber would kill all the people and probably damage components of the equipment through neutron capture and secondary emissions of other particles.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Those are designed to be used as an air burst

Limited blast...kills people leave infrastructure intact.

[FarCenter]

19. The neutron shielding of granite and concrete is better than I thought

Yes, nuclear warheads would normally be airburst, but there is no reason that they cannot be exploded very near or on the ground with parachute descent from bombers or cruise missiles.

Certainly if you go into the megaton class, a substantial crater would be excavated and the shock wave would probably destroy all of the centrifuges, particularly if they were spinning at the time.

My recollection of Autovon switching offices is that the equipment bays were mounted on truck springs, with lots of slack in the cabling so that the bays could bounce around a couple of feet. Basically the same as is used for earthquake resistant mountings. None of the pictures of Iranian centrifuges have shown similar equipment.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. Are you people seriously discussing the offensive use of nuclear weapons?

This discussion is taking a Strangelovian turn.

[FarCenter]

17. "Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Those are normally air burst and would not be effective

[Motown_Johnny]

24. Nukes would be a political disaster

IMO not an option




I think the focus on penetrating the facilities to destroy the equipment might be overrated. These facilities must have entrances. A series of "bunker busters" being used to collapse these corridors.


It would be a temporary measure but there isn't any reason it couldn't be done again and again and again until the Iranians give up on the facilities.

[xchrom]

6. well, somebody has to make some money out of this!11 think of the captains of industry! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Brilliant! Another war to lose.

[woo me with science]

13. See, this is how we do it while claiming no culpability.

The Military Industrial Complex will, of course, be drawn into this against its will.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. I get the impression for some of us this is just a technical problem.

Will bunker busters work?

How about tactical nukes?

How about neutron bombs?

Maybe there are other questions we should be asking.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. The question of "if we can" is different than the question "If we should"

Those to have bought into the soundbite that a single bomb may not penetrate deep enough are not understanding the tactical options.

Whether we should or not is a very different kind of question and a very legitimate one

[woo me with science]

16. No shit. nt

[Chuuku Davis]

18. They don't have a plane that can deliver them

[ellisonz]

22. After a quick browse...

...I'm pretty sure the F-15 and F-16 can deliver the smaller bunker busters. What they don't have is the bomber aircraft to deliver the really heavy bunker busters.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. "Sell" to someone we provide military aid to

is just a paperwork trick



this isn't a sale



http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000623507&fid=1725

^snip^

Obama 2012 budget has rise in US aid to Israel


US President Barack Obama's budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 (which begins on October 1, 2011) keeps foreign aid for Israel, Egypt, and most other recipients unchanged, but it is not clear what the House of Representatives and the Senate will leave in.

The budget proposes $3.075 billion in US military aid for Israel, $75 million more than in fiscal year 2011. The aid proposal is based on the US-Israeli understandings signed on August 16, 2007. US military aid is set to increase by a further $25 million to $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2013, and remain at that level through 2018, assuming that the US foreign aid program remains as is. Israel is also due to receive $20 million in aid for integrating refugees.