Re: first series Su-34 for RuAF

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?296474#296474
> (in Russian)
>
> Intefax repotrs first series Su-34 bomber build for RuAF flew it is
> first flight on Saturday before the commision of top russian generals.
> By the end of 2005 there will be upto 10 Su-34 in RuAF service.

Those are fairly impressive planes
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/). Am I wrong?

AHS

[Ron]

>I know the Air Force is looking around for B-1's to put them back into
>service but I have heard no such mention about doing the same with the
>F-111's. If you happen to have one in your garage with a tarp over it, the
>Air Force would like to speak to you.
>

Actuallly they have retired many of the early B-1Bs already.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Ben Full]

Mongo Link.exe failed a turing test with the following:

> F-117 is not a true stealth aircraft. It can be seen on radar. It is
> almost stealthy and it's a 30 year old "bomber" but 30 years on,
> still nobody has anything like it. I don't believe it's supersonic
> either.

So if the F-117 isnt a true stealth aircraft, please let us know what is.
Just because it can be seen on radar does not make it 'not a true stealth'
aircraft. It was designed with stealth characteristics as primary design
objective. Looks like they managed that one. All stealth does is *reduce*
the detection range of the radar, enabling you to get closer to the target
to kill it before the enemy can react. Go read up on the subject then come
back and rejoin the debate.

rgds

BMFull

[Ron]

>
>The F-111 fleet was discarded as part of an
>arms reduction deal with the former USSR

>Keith

You are usually pretty accurate, but on this I will have to beg to differ.

The F-111s were not retired until the after USSR stopped existing, and I do not
think it was due to any agreements.
FB-111s were converted to F-111G, but I think those did not last that long in
the inventory. The D,E,F models continued on until 96 or so I think, followed
by EF-111 being retired around 98 I believe.

I have thought it was more because of cost, maintanance and upgrades needed for
it. I think there would have been a major systems and avionics upgrade program
for those planes if they had been kept, which I for one, which they would have
been upgraded. F-111s were probably the fastest combat aircraft the USAF ever
had, and were extremely capable.




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >The F-111 fleet was discarded as part of an
> >arms reduction deal with the former USSR
>
> >Keith
>
> You are usually pretty accurate, but on this I will have to beg to differ.
>
> The F-111s were not retired until the after USSR stopped existing, and I
do not
> think it was due to any agreements.

The F-111 was one of the aircraft specifically mentioned in the treaty
regarding the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe signed
19 November 1990. That treaty limited the numbers and types
of strike aircraft that could be deployed in Europe. It committed all
parties to a reduction to agreed levels within 40 months.

While its true this treaty came into effect after the break up of the
USSR it was negotiated during its existence and signed by its
successor states

> FB-111s were converted to F-111G, but I think those did not last that long
in
> the inventory. The D,E,F models continued on until 96 or so I think,
followed
> by EF-111 being retired around 98 I believe.
>
> I have thought it was more because of cost, maintanance and upgrades
needed for
> it. I think there would have been a major systems and avionics upgrade
program
> for those planes if they had been kept, which I for one, which they would
have
> been upgraded. F-111s were probably the fastest combat aircraft the USAF
ever
> had, and were extremely capable.
>

Certainly those factors influenced the choice of aircraft the USAF
chose to retire but the decision to reduce the number of strike aircraft
was a result of the signing of the CFE treaty.

Keith

[Thomas Schoene]

Ron wrote:
>> I know the Air Force is looking around for B-1's to put them back
>> into service but I have heard no such mention about doing the same
>> with the F-111's. If you happen to have one in your garage with a
>> tarp over it, the Air Force would like to speak to you.
>>
>
> Actuallly they have retired many of the early B-1Bs already.

Some. They are apparently pulling back some of the aircraft that were
supposed to be retired, however.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:15:14 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>>> I know the Air Force is looking around for B-1's to put them back
>>> into service but I have heard no such mention about doing the same
>>> with the F-111's. If you happen to have one in your garage with a
>>> tarp over it, the Air Force would like to speak to you.
>>>
>>
>> Actuallly they have retired many of the early B-1Bs already.
>
>Some. They are apparently pulling back some of the aircraft that were
>supposed to be retired, however.


It always makes me shake my head when they're so bent on putting an
aircraft out to pasture and then something comes along and they go
"oops, I guess we need that". The A-10 would have been gone long
gone if these wars didn't keep reminding them that they need them.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"George William Herbert" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Dingley > wrote:
> (George William Herbert) wrote:
> >>Oh, come on, Andy. You know better than that.
> >
> >I don't see the F-15 as a "response" to the Mig-25 specifically,
>
> The gestation of the F-15 and its place in the grand game of
> intelligence and capabilities estimates are really well documented
> and not really much of a matter of debate anymore. I'm suprised
> to find anyone unfamiliar with the subject...
[ SNIP ]

It is well documented, indeed. For example,
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf15_1.html

AHS