I'm only just learning about this outfit "Sentinel" and I'm not exactly sure how seriously to take them but this line is pretty funny
"On the other hand, we are also mindful of the low baserate for a US administration directly attacking Iran. We also considered modelling the administration as being dispositionally very over the top."
"Briefly, the US has the capacity to decisively win on one or two fronts at a time, so its strategic logic leads it to want to wrap up conflicts in order: put an end to the Ukraine war, and address Iran next, to preserve its ability to respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The logic of its rivals is then the opposite: to tightly coordinate and threaten to expand conflicts on each front so that the US can’t effectively respond to any. This is a path to a world war."
So, if US hit Iran, we have to watch out for escalation from Russia and China.
They would just arm Iran and give her satellite intel to enable the Mullahs kills as many invading American troops as possible.
That's not an escalation.
How? Your response feels like a low effort and not really anything more valuable than a strawman as well.
Russia does not want to get into a 1:1 shooting war with the US--especially now that it has a puppet in the WH. Russia has always done what was laid out in GP. It has previously been doing this in Iran, Syria, etc.
i don't see any war plans there just some flights schedule.
Reminds how in June 1941 Stalin had morning schedule for the June 22th of the German troops amassed near USSR border, yet he was saying it weren’t German war plans ...
Why would you deploy B-2s outside of the country? Does Diego Garcia even have the required climate controlled hangars to store the planes? Point of these planes was take them off from the US and have them return to the US.
If we're using them for Yemen, wouldn't the b-1b be better and cheaper. Much lower operating costs and almost double the payload?
>>Does Diego Garcia even have the required climate controlled hangars to store the planes?
This is plainly stated in the opening of the article:
>Diego Garcia is now the only known location to use the distinctive B2SS or B-2 Shelter System clamshell-style hangars. These hangars are air transportable and can be constructed in around 70 days. RAF Fairford previously had one B2SS hangar, but it was removed after being damaged in high winds (the base still retains two permanent B-2 hangars, similar to those at Whiteman AFB).
The biggest they have is the GBU-57A/B [1] and that will work until 60 meters reinforced concrete. Iran has the facilities under more than 80 to 100 meters and its granite.
Even an upgraded GBU-57A/B that it seems exist, wont be good enough.
Interesting I guess the stealth would be top and bottom right if they have that beyond the horizon radar that bounces off the ionosophere/ground
edit: wonder if there is a phased laser "radar" where it spams a bunch of uniform dots and if some of them don't come back then there's something there
probably wouldn't work, scattering
the other one would be LEO cameras that are scanning the ground for a black dorito
maybe captures aerial disturbance/lines in the sky density change
Not a dumb question at all, it can work from space! I think getting enough return signal and contrast will be the main issues. Both can be solved with a big enough lens, but then cost and maintenance will become an issue. If the system can be optimized beyond needing a single lens per beam than it might be feasible!
Fortuitous timing on your b-1 reference. There was at least one lancer airborne this morning EST time headed North out of Texas. Data did not reflect a refuel supply nearby yet the lancer was broadcasting its location.
Congress probably allowed the bombings in some overly large bill that gave expansive power to the administration to interpret threats to the US as it sees fit. The war equivalent of the Chevron ruling.
Remember when a bunch of people were complaining that tons of that legislation was dangerous crap that handed way too much power to the executive? Yeah, they were 100% right.
POTUS is the Commander in Chief and has discretionary authority to authorize missions like this. Congressional approval is only necessary to finance or not situations POTUS decides to get into. Congress obviously is the only way to formally declare war. These are low grade skirmishes or special operations or any other term to allow not needing congressional approval
Likely for Iran, they're overkill for Yemen. Hopefully it's just to put pressure on them for the negotiations. But I expect it's also to be ready if diplomacy fails.
Iran has been investing in low-frequency radars that are better at detecting stealth aircraft. Aldo the areas around Tehran and key nuclear facilities (like Fordow or Natanz) have particularly dense air defense coverage. Iran also has a good number of S-300/Bavar launchers which can saturate the air space when radar is ineffective. Not to mention that they have an untouched air force (though they are probably not in the best shape).
Defending against missiles is much harder than defending against planes (be it normal ones or stealth ones). But you're not wrong, as they were supposed to be good at both, and they failed miserably against missiles.
Low frequency radar cannot be used to target the B2. The famous incident in Serbia is because the payload bay was open and that's what the missile was locked on to. Moments before, when the payload bay was closed, the Serbian radar saw nothing, despite being pointed directly at the F-117.
It is an inherent property of low frequency radar that it is not precise enough for weapons targeting. You can't engineer that away.
That being said, these aircraft aren't invincible. If you could visually see the B2, you might be able to essentially hip-fire a SAM at it and hope it eventually picks up some signal as it gets close, but that would be pretty unlikely to work and some missiles might not be capable of doing that at all. There are some soviet systems that are optically guided, and those would probably work fine. In the day at least. Heat seeking A2A missiles would probably also work, though the B2 has some mitigations there. All these options are a significantly limited engagement range though, and I would hope B2s aren't sent alone. A few F35s with the strike would fix all problems. SEAD is way easier when the enemy's radars can barely detect you at 60km. US anti-radiation weapons can reach out to over 100km easily, though even basic SAM doctrine can limit their "Reach out and ruin someone's day" ability.
Meanwhile this entire situation is pathetic. The signal leak demonstrates that even Trump's admin knows that Europe and Israel can handle this themselves, which they insist we shouldn't pay for, and then burn money doing. We couldn't afford $100 billion a year in old, explicitly deprecated systems like Gulf War era Bradleys and weapon systems we stopped using because they aren't that great but are definitely better than nothing and CERTAINLY better than the trucks and golf carts Russia is using, but we can afford $150k per B2 flight hour to turn yet more of the desert into craters.
[threat of] Hitting on Iran may stop the flow of drones and ballistic missiles to Russia and to the Houthis which would be helpful to the ending both wars.
Edit: for the people, like the commenter below, who happens to be unaware about that major piece of the war (in particular these drones have been the main tool devastating Ukrainian infrastructure)
What do you think is the most likely course of escalation leading to WW3?
I'm not asking for much here, I just want any potential path of escalation, and everyone can judge for themselves how likely it is. If the US performs airstrikes against Iran, what can Iran do that would make WW3 more likely?
Sure, here's one. Iran hits US military bases in UAE and Bahrain. Houthi rebels launch long-range missile attacks at Saudi Arabia's and UAE's oil installations. Hezbollah attacks Israel. At the strait of Hormuz Iran directly targets US and European oil tankers. US is left with no other choice than a large scale military mobilization in the area. You can take it from there.
Are you saying the US would respond to all that with a ground invasion in Iran?
A ground invasion of Iran seems extremely difficult, and would be very unpopular, and it's still unclear how that would lead to a wider world conflict.
Why? The US can just air strike anything forever without ever doing a ground invasion. What objective would the US be seeking that could only be achieved by a ground invasion?
If you don't get boots on the ground you can't change the regime. Bombings alone would only weaken the infrastructure and probably lead local people to hate you even more. Plus in a conflict the opposite side retaliates. Once body bags start pilling back home the general public will demand an invasion.
I'm sure a precision strike at this facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Consultative_Assembly would change the regime somewhat, and make many people currently suffering from them rather happy. Could probably be sold as womans liberation.
Hrm. Dunno exactly. Probably give them the option to join the Kurdish Republic of Free Rojava, minus the Barsani-Clan. Otherwise give them the nukes they always wanted. Shining (b)right over their heads. Like the cleanest zoroastrian purification possible.
I think the dangers of nuclear war are overblown in public perception.
Regarding räydiäyshun alone, there have been 512 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests since 1945, and were still here. Maybe with a little bit higher cancer rate, but that could have been caused by many other things, by unwise introduction of byproducts of industrialisation. Hrmm. Lemme ssink...industry...oh yeah, coal power! Even moar räydiäshun!1!! Whee!
Then there is the theory of Hormesis. Which could be applied to at least some forms of weak radiation, in spite of only a few very vocal, nay-saying kooks. See many places around the world, were people are bathing and breathing in radone-rich caves and waters, or beaches in Brazil.
and many more, just without entry in the global cybernetic landfill.
So, away with the 'glo-in-ze-dark' stuff, except for one last thing:
Spontane Verdampfung führt zur Entkrampfung! (Spontaneous evaporation leads to relaxation)
Hrmyah, whaddäbbout WW3? Depending on where you are, that already happened, when seen as total devastation of ones environment. Does it matter when it glows in the dark by itself? Does it have to, to make ones situation even more miserable? Do I care?
No. I prefer a rather cold, zoomed out view, as envisioned in the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones, proudly riding my trusty Blucifer.
Ze Ztarz! My Destination! (One way or another, I don't bother)
Now please excuse me, I need to have the snake tatto reapplied to my dick, otherwise Jizzbella disapproves...…
Because Syria is fragile, and so is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen. Those are all countries where Iran has very strong influence. The world isn't the same as it was 20 years ago, and Iran is way more powerful than what Iraq was back then.
Any type of action has a reaction. Iran can target US military bases all around Middle East. They can damage tankers passing the Persian Gulf causing havoc to worldwide markets.
There's a fabulous article[0] by William Langewiesche in "The Atlantic" that I read years ago to that effect; it's "An Extraordinarily Expensive Way to Fight ISIS" that follows a B-2 mission against a group of ISIS militants in the desert that shows how ridiculous they are against such an enemy. But yes, essentially they are enormous military-industrial capital investments, and it seems they just want to get used now and again.
This puts a pretty strong asterisk on other comments speculating that these probably aren't for Yemen, since they'd be overkill. They are overkill, but also we've used them in cases where better-scoped and cheaper solutions would have done the job, before.
As for comments like "why move them there, they're built for attacking from the US?": sustained strikes. The mission in the linked article had the crews awake 33 hours and put tons of strain on their aircraft, all of which would lengthen the time to a follow-up flight to, I'd guess, several days at least. You do this if you are planning to (or want it to look like you're planning to) use the aircraft several times in within a single week.
