Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1308154
be deployed in an operation as such. Furthermore, these aircraft carry the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, designed to destroy underground structures. One could assume then that during the initial phase of the conflict, the US efforts would be focused on gaining air superiority (by destroying the Iranian military aviation assets, in the air, and when those assets would still be on the ground), destroying the radar sites and command posts, and the most dangerous SAMs, primarily the S-300 systems. At least some of Iran's fighters could be engaged in a fight, similarly to the anti-aircraft assets. Probably, the best quality SAM systems would be employed to protect the high-value targets. Those actions could potentially result in losses among the attackers but to an insignificant degree. It could be expected that not only would the losses result from the air operations and air defense system employment, but also the errors or equipment damage on the US side. It may be preliminarily said that the losses would be at a level similar to the one that we have witnessed during the US operation against Serbia, back in 1999. Back then, the Americans lost just two airframes. Should a conflict break out involving Iran, the losses may be even higher. However, this matter should not have any impact on the outcome of the operation. Obtaining air superiority should make it possible to carry out the primary mission - the destruction of the Iranian nuclear and missile facilities. As already mentioned, special-purpose weapons will be needed to act against underground facilities. Meanwhile, overground infrastructure can be eradicated in any manner available. Guided bomb units, however, seem to be the way to go. And these would be delivered by F-15E or F-16. Operation as such could last even 48 hours, in the most optimistic scenario. According to the principle that assumes that no plan would withstand the first enemy contact, one should also ask a question about the potential retaliatory measures that Iran could have up its sleeve. One of those means could take on a form of an airstrike involving the available air assets - Su-24 or Su-22: even assuming that some of the Iranian aircraft would survive in a usable condition to execute a counter- attack, against the bases around the Persian Gulf area or ships in the Arabian Sea. Attack as such could be viewed as a suicide strike. This would bear a tactical significance - there would be no need to take into account the fuel that would be needed to return to base. However, the relevant limitation here is the ability of the US and allied forces to detect a strike as such and counteract. It needs to be assumed that some of the forces, including the fighter aircraft; supported by the AWACS assets, and ship-borne air defenses; would still be tasked with the protection of the blue side. It would be effective in the execution of that defensive mission probably, due to the technological advantage when ANALYSIS