WAS THE US RESCUE OF DOWNED F-15 WSO IN IRAN CAMOUFLAGE FOR A FAILED URANIUM GRAB MISSION?
You can bet your last dollar there will always be a story you have never been told, always a conspiracy somewhere. The latest being the rescue effort was a camouflage for a covert attempt by the US to "grab" Iran's enriched uranium. We are told the proof in the pudding is the drama unfolded in close proximity to the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, the huge force involved in the rescue operation, and Iranian authorities have "confirmed" it was a failed "uranium grab".
This is one such Singaporean's views on Facebook::The post is reproduced here:
Mission Impossible turns into Mission Disaster
The US Sectary of War, who has never served in the Army before, fired the 4 Star General Randy George who was the Chief of Staff of US Army for his refusal to execute the crazy plan to send ground troops into Iran and snatch the weapon grade uranium.
The plan was exposed earlier whereby the crazy plan includes the building of a makeshifts runway for C130 to land on Iran soil, near the targeted nuclear facility!
Yesterday, at least 1 C130 was destroyed along with some other aircrafts.
US President Trump claims that this C130 was used for "rescuing" the missing F15 crew which was shot downed earlier by Iranians.
He further claims that the missing crew was "successfully rescued" but they have to bomb and destroy that C130 "used in the rescue mission" as the aircraft was "stucked" in the soil!
This is totally illogical and rubbish.
No army in the world would use a huge C130 for a rescue mission deep right into enemy's territory! In fact, if Iran was able to shoot down a fast flying F15E fighter jet, it's really a crazy idea to risk the C130, which is a BIGGER TARGET and Slower flying plane than F15 to go into that airspace and even landed in enemy's territory!
The whole story is just BS that doesn't make any sense at all! Only those people who have absolutely no idea of military warfare would believe such crappy lies!
The most probable reason for such shocking losses of at least 2 aircrafts sitting side by side is that they have been ambushed by the Iranians!
They were definitely not on a mission to rescue 1 single aircrew. It's ridiculous to use a huge C130 to do that.
I believe the Iranians' version of the engagement. These aircrafts were used on a special mission which General Randy refused to execute... Sending troops into Iran, trying to airlift tons of uranium material out. That's why they need that C130 landing onto enemy's territory. That's really an extremely stupid plan right from the beginning.
Obviously, it ended up into a great disastrous failure.
It's really sad to see how Trump to spin such a disastrous mission failure into some "success story" of rescuing one single aircrew!
Contrary to what US and Israelis claim, Iranian air defense seems to get even stronger or better even after one whole month of air bombing!
From the look of this disastrous failed mission, it's apparent that the balance has tipped and US/Israel have basically lost the war.
Before I comment on the post, I like to tell a rescue mission some 47 years ago which has become a most studied military failure. This is called "Operation Eagle Claw".
Mission - to rescue 52 hostages held in the US embassy in Tehran in 1980.
The Plan:
Phase 1- Insertion:
C-130 transport plane fly from Oman to a remote desert in Iran let's call this Forward Post). Task - transport Assault team (Delta Force) and Rangers, fuel and equipment.
Phase 2 -Helicopter link up:
8 Navy RH-53 helicopters fly in from aircraft carrier at Arabian Sea to Forward Post. Helicopters refuel from tanks brought in by C-130. Assault force transfer to helicopters..
Phase 3 - Move closer to Tehran:
Helicopters transfer Assault Force to a hiding site (let's call this the FUP). Assault Force hide during the day.
Phase 4 - Assault:
Ground convoy infiltrate Tehran. Delta Force storm embassy. Rangers secure an airfield. (Extraction Site). C-141 fly from aircraft carrier to Extraction Site.
Phase 5 - Extraction::
Delta Force rescue hostages. Helicopters fly Hostages + troops from FUP to Extraction Site. Hostages and troops fly out by C-141 aircraft. Helicopters fly to aircraft carrier.
What happened was Murphy's Law in operation - everything that can go wrong, went wrong at the worst possible time.
1. Helicopters flying to Forward Post encountered the Haboobs (sandstorms). Visibility was affected, they had navigation problems and mechanical stress. Two helicopters were forced to return to aircraft carrier. A third helicopter arrived at Forward Post became unserviceable.
2. Minimum helicopters required for mission was 6. The had available 5.
3. Mission commander at Forward Post decided to abort.
4. During withdrawal in the dark and sandstorm, a helicopter collided with a C-130. Massive explosion, eight men killed, aircrafts destroyed.
5. Then followed a chaotic evacuation. Equipment and helicopters abandoned in the desert.
Several weaknesses were identified -- Over-complex mission involving army, navy, airforce at the time lacked joint integration; difficult conditions - at night, sandstorms, deep hostile country; underestimated the environment - helicopters were not optimised for the mission profile's tight tolerance -- required 6 helicopters, launched 8.
Improvements after Eagle Claw:
- Creation of JSOC (Joint Special Ops Command). A unified force, improved coordination.
- Formation of 160th SOAR (Night Stalkers) -- elite helicopter unit specialising in night ops, harsh environments, special ops support.
- Various improved equipment. Aerial refueling for helicopters.
The Facebook post makes the bold statement:
"No army in the world would use a huge C130 for a rescue mission deep right into enemy's territory"
This shows the author's ignorance of US' CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue) doctrine. The author did not specify, but it is obvious he thinks to rescue one man, just send in one or maybe two helicopters.
Helicopters are needed for the "last mile" operation -- pick-up. But there is a big problem when it is deep in hostile territory. The distance is too far for helicopters. In Eagle Claw, the heavy RH-53 Sealion Navy helicopters were specially fitted with extra tanks to carry enough fuel for the flight from USS Nitmtz in the Arabian Sea to the Forward Point near Tehran. These extra tanks contributed to stress. The C-130 carried the fuel for the helicopters to top up their tanks for the return trip.
In the case of the F-15 rescue, the helicopters could have arrived in one of three ways:
- From ME bases (most likely from Iraq if that's the case).
- From aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea.
- Transported in by C-130 planes.
If they were launched from ME bases, it would have to be Iraq which is nearest. But using a neutral country is politically complicated. From the Iraqi Base or carrier, the distance is still way too far. They would have refueled in the air, for which the US now has the capability. For return trip, the C-130 would have carried the required fuel.
The helicopters could have been transported in by the C-130. We do not know what types of helicopters were used. An ABC report mentioned 2 Black Hawks were attacked by ground fire. If Black Hawks were used, it would most likely be MH-60. These Black Hawks have aerial refueling capability. They can also be transported by C-130 but requires some disassembly. Main motor blades need to be removed or folded, tail pylon has to be folded. This means they are transported in disassembled, then reassembled once they arrived, then disassembled again to fit into the C-130 for return trip. The term for this is "roll-on, roll-off configuration". It requires several hours and mechanics. Time is the critical factor in this operation, so it is more likely the Black Hawks flew in from a carrier. The definitive reason why the Black Hawks flew in from carrier is because MH-50 would have taken up the whole cargo space of C-130. As only two C-130s flew in, they could carry only two Black Haws and nothing else.
However, the wreckage of the two abandoned and destroyed C-130 showed carcasses of helicopters inside. These could be MH-6 Little Bird which can fit inside the C-130, faster to deploy, ideal for tight mountain landing zones such as the Zagros terrain where the WSO was hiding. MH-6 is ideal for quick extraction situation. From the Eagle Claw experience, CSAR doctrine carries lots of redundancies.
Instead of such a bold statement, it would have been more intuitive and meaningful to ask the question - "Why is it the first pilot was rescued without the fanfare of such a big CSAR team?". No details have been released, but apparently he was rescued by use of a helicopter. This is where understanding US combat operations help.
The Golden Window
Rescue mission is time critical. The first several hours is the "golden window". The enemy has not mobilised their capture force. The pilot ejects, activates beacon. A rescue team is already airborne and on alert. Helicopter launches immediately. The pilot us picked up within hours.
The logical question is -- how could there be a helicopter nearby? You need to understand US military concept "CSAR on strip alert". Every military operation is conducted with several levels in sync. In the case of air operation, when a strike force of patrol aircraft enters dangerous airspace, there is a rescue layer (CSAR - helicopters), tanker planes (for refueling), ISR (drones, surveillance), and Escort (cover aircraft). These support teams are positioned outside the most dangerous zone, but close enough to respond fast. The helicopter was already airborne in a holding position just at the edge of Iranian airspace. The rescue was a "snatch and go" extraction.
The pilot was extracted within hours. After that, the rescue layer that enveloped the original mission of the F-15 is no more. Any further rescue after that "golden window" gap has to be a deliberate operation.
A Deliberate Rescue Operation
Sometimes a downed pilot cannot activate his beacon fast due to weak signals, or enemy forces are closing in, or there is no safe landing zone. He has to relocate and time passes. In such a situation, the standby helicopter cannot locate and extract him safely. This was what happened to the second crewman. The WSO (weapons specialist officer) took evasive action and hid in the mountains.
The world never knew of the missing second crewman until irresponsible leftist media reported it. The admin is trying to identify the leaker. With that news out, the whole dynamics of a rescue attempt changes. The area is crawling with enemy forces.
I described the Eagle Claw for one specific purpose. You can see how the F-15 rescue looks very similar. The abandoned landing strip is the Forward Post. Operating deep in enemy territory requires the Forward Post to have a credible defence capability. Even though it is only one man being rescued, the C-130s come in with tremendous fire power and defence capability.
The Forward Post is not actually an Outpost that is for holding a ground for a longer period of time. It is actually called FARP (Forward Arming and Refuelling Point) or expeditionary staging strip. It's purpose is refuel helicopters, stage rescue teams, provide a short window of operations. Such a mission probably has more than 100 personnel. This would include:
Assault/rescue force: The team that actually go get the pilot and escort back to extraction point. These include pararescue personnel (PJs) and special unit operators.
Security/ perimeter force: The role is to secure the landing zone, establish outer and inner perimeter, watch for approaching vehicles or patrols. this would be the biggest contingent, with equipment like light vehicles, heavy machine guns, night vision/optics.
Aviation support team: They enable helicopters to turn around quickly refueling crew, loadmasters, ground handlers, mechanics. Equipment - fuel bladders, pumps and hoses.
Medical team: Some combat medics.
Demolition team: To destroy aircraft when needed. (As it happened, they were needed.)
Airfield/engineering element: Small team to mark landing zone, assess ground condition.
Command & Control: Mission commander and communications team They connect helicopters, ISR (drones), and to Higher Command. Equipment includes secure radios, satellite communications, data links.
The ground teams at the FARP is just the tip of the spear. Most of the real support is in the air. There are fighters providing cover, drones (ISR), tankers (refuelling). ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) is critical. Without ISR helicopters would be flying blind, ground team would have no warning, pilot might never be found. With ISR the whole battlefield becomes visible and predictable.
So there we go. The WSO was rescued two days after the crash. A full force deliberate rescue was necessary. CSAR team would be on standby. Once his location is identified, Black Hawks fly from carrier, refuel in mid-air to search and extract the WSO. C-130s fly from carrier to the abandoned air strip as FRAP. (or Black Hawks could have been transported by the C-130 to FRAP.) After extraction, helicopters fly back to FRAP, (Either refuel and fly back to carrier, or disassembled and loaded onto C-130).
The whole operation, bearing the time taken to locate the WSO, would be in a matter of minutes to an hour. If Black Hawks were transported by C-130, probably add another hour for assembly and disassemble. The mission is time critical as the enemy by then would have already known the incursion and are closing in.
The timing for deployment is when two things align -- (a) Location confidence is high enough, so no time wasted searching blindly; (b) a tactical window opens. This window takes into consideration enemy is not too close, air defence is manageable, weather visibility is favourable. That window is very short - from minutes to an hour. So the key is not just knowing the location, but timing. Waiting for that window of opportunity could possibility also be why they took 2 days.
Location does not mean exact coordinates down to a few meters. It is a tight box of maybe hundreds of meters to a few km. CSAR build the location progressively by an initial fix (from ejection beacon, last known aircraft position); with ISR refinement (drone surveillance, thermal imaging at night, movement tracking; Pilot comm if possible (survival radio, visual signs); Pattern of life (no enemy patrols nearby, terrain allows landing).
The helicopter phase is very quick. They are not really searching in the traditional sense. They go directly to a pre-validated spot. By the time they launch, they already know the rough landing spot, the threat picture.
The intuitive relevant question here is, if that is so, why not just send in the helicopters, why the large force. The answer is because too many things can go wrong. The WSO may not be at the Landing Zone; the terrain may be unsuitable; enemy shows up mid-landing; helicopter takes fire; mechanical issues, etc. If the helicopters come from aircraft carrier, the distance is huge, there is no margin for delays, search or mistakes. Deep inside enemy territory, you cannot afford to try again.
Knowing the location makes the mission possible, but it does not make it safe. The large force exists to compress risk into a very short window and survive it. The large force is about insurance, not search. In the few minutes required for the pick up, the force ensures control of airspace, awareness of ground threats, and back up plans. The real reason for the scale is, in one word, redundancy. The force is built so that if one helicopter fails, another continues; if threats appear, they can be suppressed; if landing zone is bad, alternate plans exist.
The underlying doctrine of the CSAR deliberate rescue is for the force to control a limited surrounding zone for a very short window of time counted in minutes not hours, and certainly not to hold the area for days.
".. the aircraft was "stucked" in the soil! ..... This is totally illogical and rubbish."
The Facebook post assumed somebody constructed a Changi airport quality runway in the dessert. It was an abandoned air strip which is nothing more than compacted sand. See the reason why there is an airfield-engineering element in the rescue team?
"I believe the Iranians' version of the engagement. These aircrafts were used on a special mission..."
It is not stated in this post but elsewhere, by that "special mission", the writer subscribes to the conspiracy theory of "grabbing the enriched uranium".
Let's look at the facts to see how this may or may not work out. Bearing in mind the following:
- operation is time critical, enemy forces are approaching.
- the US has no knowledge of where the uranium is located, other than the general notion it is distributed to 3 areas -- Isfahan, Nantanz and Fordow.
- you are dealing with a dangerous and very heavy material
How much Uranium is there:
IAEA mid-2025 estimate Iran's total stockpile of enriched Uranium is about 9,200 kg. (Roughly 9.2 metric tons). It is not enormous like a building, but definitely not something you carry away easily in a raid. Uranium is a very dense material.
The Uranium is stored in large steel cylinders. Full weight about 1 to 2.5 tons each, depending on cylinder size.
The most dangerous ones are those enriched to 60%. This is estimated about 400 kg, roughly 1/2 ton.
The cylinder shape presents some difficulties in lifting and rest or stacking. It requires rigging and serious strapping.
Understanding the chemistry:
Enriched Uranium is stored as Uranium hexafluoride (UF6). At room temperature it is in its solid state - white crystalline. When slightly heated (about 56 deg C), it turns into gas which is extremely dangerous. When it comes into contact with moisture in the air, it forms corrosive substances and toxic fumes. UF6 is radioactive, but it is even more dangerous due to its reactivity with heat and air. That is why it must be kept completely sealed.
These two factors explain the difficulty of transportation, what more in a combat situation.
Extreme care has to be taken in handling and transportation to prevent damage to cylinders. Heat is not the danger, but any knocks or dents may cause a leak and catastrophe.
Heavy duty industrial forklift can lift 2.5kg. But this works only on smooth factory floor, not on dessert sand, uneven terrain. The US military has telehandlers which are meant to work on uneven terrain. There are various models. The compact telehandler is perfect as it fits into the C-130 and capable of lifting up to 5 tons. Black Hawks are also capable of lifting a telehandler.
There are two ways the cylinders could be transported from the Isfahan Nuclear Tech Center (assuming the uranium is stockpiled there) to the C-130 at the FRAP. One is by helicopters, the other by military trucks.
If by helicopters, Black Hawks can use slings to carry telehandler from C-130 to site. But there is no way they can load the cylinders by telehandler into the Black Hawks. It would have to be by slings. This requires the helicopter to be hovering while the telehandler lowers the cylinder onto the sling. This presents some degree of difficulty and time. Using sling also presents dangers in the air due to downward drafts, dessert wind, and the swings cause stability problems. Landing also presents a danger as the cylinder may suffer knocks. How many cylinders will be "grabbed" there and are there enough Black Hawks. If not, how many trips must the helicopters make? These are unknowns.
If by military trucks, the loading and unloading would be much easier.
We need to consider the distance from the C-130 at the abandoned airstrip to the Nuclear Tech Center. This is about 40 km on a straight line but there are mountainous regions in between. Assuming the US force will avoid the main road and the difficult terrain necessitates much detouring, the actual distance may be much longer than 40 km. Let's bump it up to 60 km. The trucks and the telehandler would move in a convoy. Time taken for the journey would be constrained by the speed of the telehandler.
The speed of the journey to and from Tech Center and the C-130 would be faster using helicopters then by trucks. However, due to the dangers of sling-lifting the cylinders by helicopters, the hauling has to be done by trucks..
Why the "Uranium grab" claim is just conspiracy theory
The time factor:
(a) Move convoy from FRAP to site. Assume 60 km journey over rough terrain and telehandler speed of 10-25 kph. Let's assume average of 20 kph. Time taken would be 3 hours.
(b) Search for the Uranium -- anybody's guess. From hours to even days!
(c) Haul cylinders from storage to trucks - unknown.
(d) Load cylinders to truck and secure them properly -- perhaps 15 minutes per cylinder.
(e) Move convoy from site back to FRAP - 3 hours.
(f) Unload cylinders from trucks to C-130 -- give 20 minutes (some difficulty to maneuver telehandler inside C-130.
(g) Load all equipment into C-130 -- let's give 30 mins.
Known estimated times = (a) + (e) + (g) = 3+3+1/2 hrs = 6 hrs 30 mins.
Cylinder quantity dependent time = (d) + (f) = 35 mins per cylinder. Assuming there are 4 large cylinders, total time = 2 hrs 20 mins.
Unknown time -- (b) + (c).
Total known estimated time = 8 hr 50 mins.
Mission change:
The operation has changed from a "raid" to "lodgement".
A CSAR rescue is a precision raid - fast, minimal footprint, spend only minutes at objective.
A uranium seizure becomes a lodgement operation, securing a foothold deep in enemy territory for days.
The whole structure and dynamics change. It's become different ground control concept with a bigger force and different force structure, more extensive layers of ISR, massive logistics, more equipment, manpower and weaponries.
Why the mission change? Because during that time, Iranian forces are closing in, missile and drone attacks to be expected.
The operation now requires two nodes -- one at the nuclear site, one at the airstrip C-130 landing site. The two nodes are connected by a corridor. The nodes have an inner perimeter and an outer perimeter. The air-strip is key. Loose this and the mission fails.
You are now looking not at 100-200 personnel, but upwards of 1,000 boots on the ground. Most will be combatants to provide security. Un addition to combatants, you need:
(1) a team of specialists in hazmat suits to handle dangerous materials,
(2) workmen to do the loading and unloading of materials,
(3) expanded medical team as firefights are assured,
(4) cooks,
(5) more C-130 mechanics,
You will also need more equipment:
(6) weapons, combat gear, ammo, tactical vehicles (humvees?) for the combatants,
(7) fuel and sustainment - fuel for vehicles, generators, aircraft turnaround and necessary equipment like fuel bladders, pumps,
(8) kitchen facilities + provisions,
(9) medical contingency buffers.
The critical constraint that dooms this operation on the planning table
There will be lots of air movement -- for the insertion, extraction, possible resupply, redundancy (for losses, damage).
A minimum realistic estimate for just the insertion is about 40 to 60 sorties of C-130. All-in the whole operation is likely to see 60 to 100 sorties. This is massive airlift. You cannot hide or disguise this scale of operation.
How many C-130s can the airstrip hold at any given time? Unknown, but obviously not many. This ain't Changi Airport. Throughput at the airstrip becomes a bottleneck. Can the airstrip handle repeated landings and simultaneous ground operations. The airstrip is compacted sand, and we know two C-130s got stuck in the sand and had to be destroyed.
This "grab the uranium" mission would not even pass the planning stage.
Conclusion
Former Cencom Commander Frank McKenzie says:
"It takes only a year to build a plane, but it takes over 200 years to build a tradition to never abandoning a comrade."
Military cultures of some countries:
US - The Soldier's Creed is "I will never leave a fallen comrade" The other military branches have similar creeds. This is not a strict rule or absolute doctrine, but an ethos. Over the years it has become a very visible ideal. The US will take significant risks to rescue wounded, missing, or even recover bodies.
Western allies - More or less similar like US, but they are more practical in execution and take less risks.
Israel - Extremely strong "bring them home" culture. Will trade prisoners or negotiate extensively. But they are highly calculating about operational risk.
Russia - Historically the emphasis is on mission accomplishment . Still has cultural slogans like "we don't abandon our own" but less institutional focus on individual recovery.
China - Officially emphasises collective over individual. Has a less publicly visible rescue culture.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.