Israel can't arm itself with 30,000-pound bombs in time against Iran - opinion

Last week, Dr. Eric R. Mandel made a compelling argument for deterring the Iranian regime through the use of the largest bunker busters. While I wholeheartedly agree with him, I disagree with the methods of delivery from a technical standpoint. This is an important debate as Dr. Mandel must lobby for the most effective weapons that can be operational quickly.

Why is the 30,000lb GBU-57 bomb important?

The GBU-57 would, in Dr. Mandel's words, "slow their nuclear program, prevent a retaliatory ballistic missile attack on Israel, and de-escalate the conflict." If Israel can destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, "Iran may be much more hesitant to respond to the Israeli attack on Iranian soil or move towards weaponization and complete a functioning atomic bomb."

Dr. Mandel's article claimed that F-15I Ra'am could theoretically undergo retrofitting to carry 30,000-pound bombs. While the bomb does fit size-wise, there are several engineering roadblocks. The Ra'am would need structural modifications as its payload is 23,000lb in at least three hardpoints. The fuel capacity would be reduced by two-thirds, as external fuel tanks would have to be omitted. Since the F-15I cannot reach Iran without aerial refueling, the vulnerable tanker would likely have to cross into Iranian airspace.

The recently introduced F-15IA has an increased payload of 29,500lb but is spread out throughout the airframe. Structural modifications and range and aerodynamic issues would be time-consuming. The center of mass would shift, adding a whole set of issues to be solved.

Why can't the Israeli Air Force deliver 30,000-pound bombs?

Israel lacks the methods of delivering a bomb larger than the 5,000lb GBU-28. The Air Force strike capabilities are centered around tactical multirole fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16, with no strategic bombers, such as the supersonic B-1B Lancer or the stealthy B-2 Spirit. 

The reasoning behind such a procurement strategy was two-fold: Israel did not need the range of these aircraft (and associated weight and complexity), and purpose-built bombers lack air-to-air capabilities. The benefit of F-15s and F-16s is that after dropping their payload, they are nimble fighters, and they can also be used in air superiority configuration to escort a strike package into enemy territory.

The B-1B, B-2, and B-52 bombers are the only aircraft in the Western inventory with the capability to carry the 30,000lb GBU-57. Additionally, it can strike Iran without aerial refueling. They were designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses and go after hardened and mobile targets, such as road-based ballistic missiles - something Israel might eventually need to do against the Iranian regime.

What are the issues with obtaining US bombers?

The B-52 lacks either the supersonic speed of the B-1B or the low-observability of the B-2. The mothballed units would take a long time to get operational, although they could benefit from Israeli electronic warfare suites.

Training is an issue, as it would take months in the best case scenario to be flown by Israeli crews and potentially years to have the level of proficiency currently displayed by them. 

Even if the US authorized such a sale, it would require congressional approval, instantly giving Iran the incentive to test its first nuclear device to alert Israel of the consequences of an attack, and at the same time, they would fit nuclear warheads on all their remaining ICBMs.

Dr. Mandel's proposal of using C-130 Hercules cargo planes is unrealistic. While they have been used in Afghanistan, they are highly vulnerable aircraft. Short-range MANPADs can make short work of slow transports. Iran, like Vietnam or Yugoslavia, when facing US airpower, has aircraft and mobile SAM systems dispersed, making it almost impossible to destroy all of them. Furthermore, new guidance systems would have to be developed, increasing development time.

What are the alternatives?

Short of leasing an American strategic bomber and providing nationality to the pilots and maintenance crew (upwards of 120 hours of maintenance per flight hour), no option would be operationally ready within months if not years.

There is a new bunker buster bomb in the pipeline, which would use rocket boosters akin to WW2's "Disney bomb", and would be smaller for the new B-21 Raider and potentially the F-15IA/EX. 

Another option could be to modify an existing Jericho ICBM. According to open sources, the Jericho III has a 2,500lb warhead. However, the missile itself weighs over 60,000lb and has a range of over 4,000 miles, so swapping fuel for warhead weight could be plausible, albeit with enormous engineering challenges. Data on Jericho IV is still classified.

The writer is a National Security and Holocaust Studies MA thesis researcher/student at the University of Haifa. He specialized in modern warfare, with an emphasis on air power and logistics.