Israel cannot arm itself with 30,000 pound bombs against Iran in time

Last week Dr. Eric R. Mandel presents a convincing argument for deterring the Iranian regime by using the largest bunker busters. Although I completely agree with him, I disagree with the delivery methods from a technical point of view. This is an important debate because Dr. Mandel must advocate for the most effective weapons that can be deployed quickly.

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

The GBU-57 would, in Dr. In Mandel's words, “slow its nuclear program, prevent a retaliatory ballistic missile attack on Israel and de-escalate the conflict.” If Israel can destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, “Iran may be much more reluctant to respond to Israel's attack on Iranian soil or to focus on arming and completing a workable nuclear bomb.”

In dr. Mandel's article claimed that the F-15I Ra'am could theoretically be converted to carry 30,000-pound bombs. Although the size of the bomb is appropriate, there are some technical hurdles. The Ra'am would require structural modifications as its payload is 23,000 pounds at at least three bases. Fuel capacity would be reduced by two-thirds as external fuel tanks would have to be eliminated. Since the F-15I cannot reach Iran without aerial refueling, the vulnerable tanker would likely have to enter Iranian airspace.

The recently introduced F-15IA has an increased payload of 29,500 pounds, but is distributed throughout the airframe. Structural changes as well as range and aerodynamic issues would be time-consuming. The focus would shift and add a whole host of problems that would need to be solved.

In this handout image released April 14, 2024, crews work on an Israeli Air Force F-15 Eagle in a hangar, reportedly on an intercept mission of an Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel. (Source: Israel Defense Forces/Handout via REUTERS)

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

Israel does not have the methods to launch a bomb larger than the 5,000-pound GBU-28. The Air Force's strike capabilities focus on multi-role tactical fighters such as the F-15 and F-16, without strategic bombers such as the B-1B Lancer supersonic bomber or the B-2 Spirit stealth fighter.

The reasons for such a procurement strategy were twofold: Israel did not need the range of these aircraft (and the associated weight and complexity), and purpose-built bombers lack air-to-air capabilities. The advantage of the F-15 and F-16 is that they are nimble fighters after dropping their payload and can also be used in air superiority configuration to escort an attack package into enemy territory.

The B-1B, B-2 and B-52 bombers are the only aircraft in the Western inventory capable of carrying the 30,000-pound GBU-57. In addition, it can attack Iran without aerial refueling. They were designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses and attack resilient and mobile targets such as road-launched ballistic missiles – something Israel may have to do at some point against the Iranian regime.

What problems are there in procuring US bombers?

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

Stay up to date with the latest news!

Subscribe to the Jerusalem Post newsletter

Training is an issue as it would take months at best for them to be flown by Israeli crews and possibly years for them to reach current levels of performance.

Even if the US were to authorize such a sale, it would require congressional approval, which would immediately give Iran the incentive to test its first nuclear device to warn Israel of the consequences of an attack, and at the same time they would all have their nuclear warheads equip remaining ICBMs with nuclear warheads.

Dr. Mandel's proposal to use C-130 Hercules cargo planes is unrealistic. Although they were used in Afghanistan, they are extremely vulnerable aircraft. Short-range MANPADs can make short work of slow transports. Iran, like Vietnam or Yugoslavia when confronted by U.S. air forces, has scattered aircraft and mobile SAM systems, making it nearly impossible to destroy them all. In addition, new control systems would have to be developed, which would extend the development time.

What alternatives are there?

Without leasing an American strategic bomber and granting nationality to the pilots and maintenance personnel (more than 120 maintenance hours per flight hour), no option would be operational within months, if not years.

A new bunker-buster bomb is being planned that would use rocket boosters similar to the World War II “Disney Bomb” and would be smaller for the new B-21 Raider and possibly the F-15IA/EX.

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

The author is a researcher/student for his master's thesis in National Security and Holocaust Studies at the University of Haifa. He specialized in modern warfare with an emphasis on air power and logistics.

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply