middle east war portfolio --- attack on Iran

I think it depends on the level of disruption/devastation. I think it unlikely that we go onto the ground there, so I think the fallout would be more tactical/contained to military targets. Oil would probably spike, people would move into defensive positions/cash/gold. Interesting thoughts on Israeli stock market.

How did defense stocks do back when we invaded Iraq/Afghanistan? Did they spike, or was that already priced in / obvious by the time the strike came?

If Iran or its proxies have/negotiate access to Pakistan's nuke materials, Israel might end up in the gutter. I doubt Israel has the stomach to engage in a possible nuke war. Iran's president, on the other hand, is now the living mad dog of the middle east (since Gadhafi is no longer around to carry that mantle).

watchtower77 said:   FW10001 said:   If Iran or its proxies have/negotiate access to Pakistan's nuke materials, Israel might end up in the gutter. I doubt Israel has the stomach to engage in a possible nuke war. Iran's president, on the other hand, is now the living mad dog of the middle east (since Gadhafi is no longer around to carry that mantle).
Please don't doubt that Israel doesn't have the stomach to engage in a possible nuclear war. They will bomb Iran before tax day.

Agreed, 100%. Anyone who mistakes how big of a threat Iran is perceived to be and how close Israel is getting to strike is in for a rude surprise.

i jumped into all cash 2 weeks ago. I assume oil will fly sky high but am content to count my profits so far this year.

pick up israeli stocks, but gold as it will be a very good bet if at all war happens. if it doesnt, gold will still be best bet. The war wouldnt happen if iran's nuclear capabilities are paralyzed. But someone need to teach iran a lesson to act good. It just cant bully everyone.

Theczar said:    someone need to teach iran a lesson to act good. It just cant bully everyone.
Please leave out such comments in FWF. Otherwise the thread will soon morph into discussions not related to personal economic profits.

First, amateurs study strategy and tactics. Professionals study logistics. How does the Israeli Air force get to Iran attack the targets and get home. The sites in Iran are beyond the unrefueled range of either the F-15 or F-16 on an one way mission. In other words the targets are beyond the range of a kamikaze mission with inadequate explosive ordinance. An attack is going to require the use of KC-135 tankers. Israel has three. Since the strike aircraft are going to have to be refueled twice, once going into Iran over western Iraq, don't expect any advantage of surprise. Unless the Iraqi government sides with Israel and DOES NOT WARN Iran of incoming hostiles. You are going to be limited to a total of 9 aircraft with bunker buster ordinance that can make it from Israel to Qom and back home. Each KC-135 is limited by load capacity as to how much fuel it can carry. The amount of fuel it can provide other aircraft is limited by the requirement that it be able to reach the refueling point, wait for the return of the homeward bound aircraft and return home. Take away the KC-135 and Israel has no credible threat to Iran by air. Now I know some dumb ass is going to say fly the tankers back and reload and meet the returning aircraft. Time and distance don't permit that. By the time the KC-135 returns to Israel, the returning aircraft on the strike will be back at the refueling point needing gas. The tankers still need to reload and then return to the rendezvous. By the time they get back the returning aircraft will already have crashed in the Iraqi desert. You might be able to get away with sending F-15's out with buddy stores to refuel F-16's for escort round trip. Problem there is the escort F-16's will carry drop tanks that they will not be able to drop over target or they will not be able to get home. This is not a new tactic. WWII, the Germans were successful a few times forcing the P-51 escorts in early 1944 to drop their drop tanks by intercepting them over Holland. A P-51 with drop tanks was meat on the table for a FW-190. Without drop tanks the P-51 couldn't escort beyond the Rhine. Fuel use below 10,000 ft means there will be no low level stealthy approach. You also have a range of mountains on the western border of Iran that will force the attack force up into optimal radar coverage the way the Ploesti raids were caught in 1943. Turning on jamming equipment is like handing out a flashing neon sign here we are come get us. That the Israelis learned in the Yom Kippur war. Given that the Iranian air force has Mig 29's and other aircraft flown from Iraq to Iran in Desert Storm plus F-14's we delivered to the Shah. The attack will be no walk in the park but much more like the Yom Kippur war. Maybe worse. Might look like missions to Hanoi. The Iranians have very adequate SAM's and Radar controlled flak to be able to inflict the kind of damage the NVA did on the US in Lam Son 719. That averaged 10 aircraft a day shot down or damaged beyond repair every day for 7 weeks.

Second the Mig 29 as demonstrated by JS73 of the Luftwaffe at Laage is superior to the F-16, F15, and F-18 in performance and combat capability both with guns and especially with the Archer AAM. Its thrust to weight ratio is 1.15:1. That means it has the power to perform a sustained a vertical climb. None of our aircraft are that capable except the F-22. For that reason Germany cancelled its planned purchase of F-16's and bought additional Mig -29's from the Ukraine as first line aircraft until the delivery of the Typhoon. With the AIM64 Phoenix missile which can reach 60+ miles the KC135's and the fighters with buddy stores are dead ducks. Each kill of a KC-135 is effectively a 3 or 4 for one shot since the aircraft returning are going to run out of fuel in the Iraqi-Jordanian desert. They still have a number of F-4's that would be very effective in attacking refueling aircraft.

Third, Israel doesn't have bunker busters that can penetrate the newest locations. They do have the GBU-28 which can be carried by the F-16 or F-15. The next iteration is deploy able by the B-52 or B-2. That kind of leaves it out of the Israeli options. Without the KC135's, Israel no longer has a credible air threat to Iran. There are things that can be done by sabotage in areas remote to the facilities for processing uranium. Remember Project Manhattan required 14% of all electricity available in the US during 1944 and 1945. Those kinds of strikes by Iranians opposing Tehran will be no where nearly as destabilizing and more effective.

The Israeli's face a logistical problem that is compounded by our logistical problems we would face in getting out of Afghanistan now that we can no longer use Pakistani supply lines. Any one willing to write off our troops in Afghanistan?

You will be a sure loser financially if Israel does try to strike. This is a march of folly like the start of WWI. Go read the Guns of August to see how miscalculations by Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, France and Britain led to global havoc beyond comprehension.

we aren't talking conventional war nsdp --- the Israeli's are well aware of their limitations

if this thing blows up into a fight, I seriously doubt it will be a couple of sorties being refueled by KC-135's

they will figure out the pretense --- Iran will be tested to see if they bite

nsdp said:   An attack is going to require the use of KC-135 tankers. Israel has three.
According to this NYT article, Israel has 8 refueling tankers.

Since the strike aircraft are going to have to be refueled twice, once going into Iran over western Iraq, don't expect any advantage of surprise. Unless the Iraqi government sides with Israel and DOES NOT WARN Iran of incoming hostiles.
I doubt Israeli aircraft would be refueling over Iraq - my guess is it would be Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia really does not want a nuclear Iran.

If refueling is an issue, then the US will need to play as well. Time for a troop reshuffle, and a legit reason to fight.

Theczar said:   ...But someone need to teach iran a lesson to act good. It just cant bully everyone. LOL, terrible grammar and embarrassingly out of touch with reality.

nsdp said:   
Second the Mig 29 as demonstrated by JS77 of the Luftwaffe at Lange is superior to the F-16, F15, and F-18 in performance and combat capability both with guns and especially with the Archer AAM. Its thrust to weight ratio is 1:1.1. That means it has the power to perform a sustained a vertical climb. None of our aircraft are that capable except the F-22. For that reason Germany cancelled its planned purchase of F-16's and bought additional Mig -29's from the Ukraine as first line aircraft until the delivery of the Typhoon. With the AIM64 Phoenix missile which can reach 60+ miles the KC135's and the fighters with buddy stores are dead ducks.

I'm not sure where you get your facts, but the F16 and F15 both have comparable thrust-to-weight ratios to the MiG29.

Also, they're AIM54, not 64, and it is debatable whether Iran has a serviceable inventory given their total lack of supply chain for spare parts or technical guidance.
The same argument goes for their F14 capability.

The points about effective combat radius are correct, though, which is the real logistical hurdle, assuming the Israelis are not granted access to airfields in a country closer to Iran.

If you missed the chance to buy bp stock after the oil spill and if you missed the chance to buy oil company stock while the whole iraq war was going on, you might be looking to this as the next oppurtunity to make money, my recommendation is to look in to smaller oil companies that are drilling in Iraq to find oil, they have negotiated ridiculous contracts with this so called iraqi government, which is not even established since they havent had a proper election. So if they find oil, which they will they will make a killing, every oil company you can think of is in Iraq right now getting oil. It would be a huge mistake to mess with Iran, i mean seriously who cares if they make a nuclear weapon we invented 70 years ago,

arch8ngel said:   nsdp said:   
Second the Mig 29 as demonstrated by JS73 of the Luftwaffe at Lange is superior to the F-16, F15, and F-18 in performance and combat capability both with guns and especially with the Archer AAM. Its thrust to weight ratio is 1:1.1. That means it has the power to perform a sustained a vertical climb. None of our aircraft are that capable except the F-22. For that reason Germany cancelled its planned purchase of F-16's and bought additional Mig -29's from the Ukraine as first line aircraft until the delivery of the Typhoon. With the AIM64 Phoenix missile which can reach 60+ miles the KC135's and the fighters with buddy stores are dead ducks.

I'm not sure where you get your facts, but the F16 and F15 both have comparable thrust-to-weight ratios to the MiG29.

Also, they're AIM54, not 64, and it is debatable whether Iran has a serviceable inventory given their total lack of supply chain for spare parts or technical guidance.
The same argument goes for their F14 capability.

The points about effective combat radius are correct, though, which is the real logistical hurdle, assuming the Israelis are not granted access to airfields in a country closer to Iran.

My source is a relative at JS73. The F-15 and F-16 can match but only by going to afterburner which the Mig 29 doesn't need; that makes a huge difference after a couple of minutes. Then fuel becomes a major consideration as it was for the ME109's over Britain when fighting the Spitfire and for one dumb US pilot over Hanoi who went in on burner and ran out of fuel over Hanoi. You might look at the films of some of the Paris Air Shows and the Discovery Channel program "Red October" where a Navy F-18 squadron goes to Lange for OPFOR training. You might note how badly the F-18 comes off when the German pilots "break script". It is done intentionally to teach American pilots humility. As for the supply chain for the AIM-54 (64 was a typo thanks for catching it.) Iran made a deal with Russia about 15 years ago to exchange a couple of the AIM-54's for refurbishing the remainder. Russia has the technology now along with working examples. That shows up in their latest generation of AAMs with Russian improvements. Given the fabulous Russian talent for reverse engineering our technology, that should be no step for them. Especially since they bought the 130micron wafer fab that produced the AMD Clawhammer cpus. While CPU's have gone up in performance by several factors since them the actual core performance has only gone up by a modest 2% per year due to the laws of heat transfer according to Los Alamos NL. Any one betting that Iran hasn't successfully created a home grown version or have a replacement from Russia badly underestimates their opponent and suffers from William Westmoreland's disease. Tommy Franks had it, MacArthur had it at Chosin and several other times. British had it big time in Malaya. You people seem to forget two things. First Russia has better Titanium technology than we have as witnessed by the shapes on the Guggenheim museum in Barcelona and two, several US aircraft maintenance companies shave been convicted of selling F-14 parts to Iran though various dummy companies. Pretty much solves the parts supply issue. Note Russia has built several swing wing aircraft after getting access to crashed F-11's in Vietnam and from the Iranians. Another example of Westmoreland's disease.

The problem with base access is that in Jordan, the government is Hashemite and the general population is Palestinian. Makes for lousy security. Saudi Arabia has similar problems and the airfields are too far away to make an attack on Iran possible. That approach will force incoming aircraft to at least 14,000 feet.. As to the tankers, Israel has 3 KC-135 period. They have 5 converted 707's. Those lack the fuel capacity for various airframe structural reasons necessary to participate in this kind of operation. As to buddy stores for F-16's, there are two countries that have installed that system on their own by removing and replacing the conventional boom system. It is doable and I would bet the Israelis are just as capable. If they haven't, then the mission becomes like the B-17's going to Schweinfurt -Regensburg.

The best solution would be a variation of Eisenhower's transportation/oil plan for bombing targets in WWII. Pick the most vulnerable link in the whole supply chain. We wasted a lot men's lives in WWII by not attacking the key links in Germany's supply chain. All that needs is dissidents in country some motorcycles and 100 lb of C-4. Other nice thing is there are no telltale fingerprints linking to us or the Israelis.

Mapen I give the IAF odds of about 1 in 5000 today. Read Robb-Wald Report which describes what additional equipment Israel needs to make an airstike credible and this article:

"According to the report, Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4192055,00.htmland

nsdp said:   arch8ngel said:   nsdp said:   
Second the Mig 29 as demonstrated by JS77 of the Luftwaffe at Lange is superior to the F-16, F15, and F-18 in performance and combat capability both with guns and especially with the Archer AAM. Its thrust to weight ratio is 1:1.1. That means it has the power to perform a sustained a vertical climb. None of our aircraft are that capable except the F-22. For that reason Germany cancelled its planned purchase of F-16's and bought additional Mig -29's from the Ukraine as first line aircraft until the delivery of the Typhoon. With the AIM64 Phoenix missile which can reach 60+ miles the KC135's and the fighters with buddy stores are dead ducks.

I'm not sure where you get your facts, but the F16 and F15 both have comparable thrust-to-weight ratios to the MiG29.

Also, they're AIM54, not 64, and it is debatable whether Iran has a serviceable inventory given their total lack of supply chain for spare parts or technical guidance.
The same argument goes for their F14 capability.

The points about effective combat radius are correct, though, which is the real logistical hurdle, assuming the Israelis are not granted access to airfields in a country closer to Iran.

My source is a relative at JS77. The F-15 and F-16 can match but only by going to afterburner which the Mig 29 doesn't need; that makes a huge difference after a couple of minutes.

I think you misunderstood your relative and that the MiG 29 IS using afterburner to achieve that thrust-to-weight ratio.
The readily accessible (Jane's, etc) numbers for that vehicle only provide max thrust at full afterburner, which if you check the math is the number they are using to calculate a thrust-to-weight of 1.09:1. There is no "MIL" (i.e. full, non-afterburner) power setting data.

The F15 is on the order of 1.04:1, non-afterburning, depending on the load-out, and up to a whopping 1.6 at full afterburner.

ppatin said:   Arguing about thrust to weight ratios is a little ridiculous. Nowadays these sorts of battles are decided by training, tactics & electronic gadgetry rather than by which plane can climb faster. Honestly, this is a case where those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know.

That's a bit rude and uncalled for. You were perfectly happy to call him out on his inaccuracy regarding refueling probes, earlier, though I suppose that was more related to the logistics of refueling by the methods he proposed.

I agree that the thrust-to-weight discussion is a tangent, though, but along the lines of cleaning up a factual error.

arch8ngel said:   ppatin said:   Arguing about thrust to weight ratios is a little ridiculous. Nowadays these sorts of battles are decided by training, tactics & electronic gadgetry rather than by which plane can climb faster. Honestly, this is a case where those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know.

That's a bit rude and uncalled for. You were perfectly happy to call him out on his inaccuracy regarding refueling probes, earlier, though I suppose that was more related to the logistics of refueling by the methods he proposed.

I agree that the thrust-to-weight discussion is a tangent, though, but along the lines of cleaning up a factual error.

I didn't mean to sound rude, my point was simply that these sorts of fights are usually decided by capabilities that are top secret and unknown to armchair strategists. Remember when the IAF bombed that nuclear facility in Syria a few years ago? There's all kinds of rumors floating around about how they disabled Syria's air defenses but nobody who really knows what happened is talking about it.

There is not going to be a war. The drums have been going on since 2003. It is all about raising oil prices, selling arms to ey-rabs. Iran is the boogiman.

Interesting info nsdp.
For the OP, if anyone were to profit from an unprovoked war of wanton aggression by a reckless imperial power, I'm guessing it would be goldman sachs
Also it would be better to be long oil than oil stocks in this situation.