Israel Loses Again

Lies piled on top of lies.

Predictions sometimes come true.

In yesterday's post, I predicted that Israel would launch an attack on Iran despite the "leak" about its plans-- if it was a leak at all! It seemed to me they were in a hurry to do this.

But I also suggested that it would be a "symbolic" attack--just as the IRGC has said it would.

Obviously a “symbolic attack” is gestural or ritualistic– meaning it's an attack that doesn't do real damage .

But how do you get around the embarrassing fact that you are punching air..

You do that by pretending that your attack did do damage--just the other side doesn't want to admit it. You say you penetrated their defenses -- and embarrassed them. You knocked them down. And they are denying it.

If you have a compliant media willing to backup your story-- and even elaborate on— it all the better!

This is something that the Ukraine does all the time-- insisting that they are winning and Russia is losing, with the Western media dutifully running the stories. Right now, it's North Korean troops in Ukraine trying to compensate for Russia's failure in Kursk! And there lots of people in the West to take that silliness as God's truth-- or Zelinski's truth – that being the same.

So Israel says that it launched an attack using about 100 aircraft, attacking at least 20 military sites in Iran-- successfully of course. Google it. You will see zillions of stories to that effect. You won’t find stories to contradict it much—it’s Google after all.

Inconvenient Facts

Keep in mind that Israel is at least 1400 miles away from its targets.

It was using AIR LORAN air-launched missiles.

The media calls these “ballistic”.

Actually they are quasi -ballistic--supersonic— but not quite hypersonic in the terminal phase, as fully ballistic missiles are —and with a range of just 175 miles with “fire and forget” navigation using GPS and inertial navigation. The distance between Israel and Tehran is about 1000 miles.

So aircraft must get closer than 825 miles to launch these thimngs. .

F 15 combat radius: 790 miles

F16 combat radius: 500 miles

F35 combat radius: 590 miles

These combat radiuses are, of course fully loaded —but can be extended plus alpha in various ways.

Air to air refueling is one way. Of, course, in this case, the aircraft could also land at a base in Iraq, mission completed. Substituting weapon payload for extra fuel tanks is another method.

The figures below are for the IAF in 2023. (Wikipedia)

The IAF may have received more aircraft since then— but likely lost some during Iran’s last missile strikes, so these numbers are approximate if basically ballpark.

Of these aircraft only F15s have the range to do the mission comfortably. Israel does have about 10 air tankers— maybe just enough for 40 or 50— but not for 100. With a 100, it would need American help to extend range.

Iranian sources pooh-pooh the idea of 100 aircraft attacking. However, 50 F15s COULD carry two Air LORANs each. F16s and F35s can also carry 2 missiles but are a tad short-legged. So, it probably wasn’t 100 aircraft - but 100 (or fewer) missiles.

Israeli F15s have slightly better range than their American counterparts and much better range than F16s, even with conformal fuel tanks like the one above. They would do the heavy lifting.

50 F15s could launch 100 missiles at maximum range, offering shorter flight times for the missiles

However, the Iranian side has been given Russian radars and EW which jams GPS very effectively. The radars have excellent range.

Whether or not the Iranians used S400s, S300s, or their own equivalents .they would have high kill rates. Out of 100 missiles, only 10 could get through. Of those only a couple would hit their targets.

Videos taken over Iran appear to show a lot of incoming missiles being snuffed out a high rate.

As I said, the Israelis said they attacked 20 sites but they really mean their plan had 20 targets.

The Iranians say, they tried to hit maybe 4. From the Iranian side. their interceptions and EW were mostly successful. Not that the video footage really gives a lot of informationl

The Western media has made much of Iran’s admitting two deaths as a result ot the attacks - -but it is not clear whether these were in Iran - or, as is more likely, in Syria, where Israel attacked Iranian radar stations. A quibble.

He says, she says….

Iran says little damage. Israel says a lot….BUT

Israel structured its strikes on Iran to limit casualties and keep the overall impact contained, a move designed to allow Iran to minimize acknowledgment of the damage and manage the aftermath, the Washington Post reported on Saturday, citing an individual with direct knowledge of Israel’s plans.

According to this source, the action was an escalated version of Israel’s response in April, when it conducted a strike in central Iran after Iran launched missiles and drones at Israel. Iranian officials at the time reported no resulting damage.

That’s the Jerusalem post quoting WaPo who is quoting an “Israeli source”, LOL.

A media circle jerk.

I go with Iran’s story.

All in all, this attack was a massive failure for both Israel and the US.

They must work hard to pretend it was not. Fortunately for them, they have the media to create an informational “Fog” as I explain in my recent Special Report for coffee buyers— “The Financialization of Information”.

Of course, the Iranians will respond. After election day?

Special Reports

I am still getting coffees, adding people to the mailing list and still sending out download reports. FIVE reports total!

Click here to buy me and Ichi and Chappy a Japanese Halloween Coffee! (Or on the photo of my neighborhood)