Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:38:25 +0100, Big Dave wrote:
Aaaah but isn't the AIM 54 being retired as the only plane that can carry it
is the F14 which is also nearing it max flying hours so will also be
retired?

Aparently, Iran (the only F-14 operator apart from the USA) is
building its own copy of the AIM 54.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
lack of spares etc.

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:38:25 +0100, Big Dave
wrote:
Aaaah but isn't the AIM 54 being retired as the only plane that can carry
it
is the F14 which is also nearing it max flying hours so will also be
retired?

Aparently, Iran (the only F-14 operator apart from the USA) is
building its own copy of the AIM 54.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

wrote in message
...
Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
lack of spares etc.



Iran's F-14 are still operational and still generate a healthy sortie rate.
If they are grounded then try telling that to Coalition forces stationed in
the Gulf who have observed shadowing by Iranian F-14s even in 2003. In
addition to their operational F-14's the Iranians also generate a healthy
F-4 Phantom sortie rate. If you pick up past copies of Air Forces Monthly
you will see various photographs of F-14 exhibited in Iran and also
undergoing indepth maintenance. Sorry, but your claim that Iranian F-14 have
been grounded for years is simply untrue.

TJ

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:43:50 -0400, wrote:
Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due to
lack of spares etc.

Don you have a cite for that? And for the general servicability of
aircraft in the Iranian Air Force? The impression I had was that
Iran was having some success in making its own spare parts and/or
buying new components, e.g from China.

On a more general note, why was there a fashion for swing-wing
aircraft in the 60s and 70s -- F-14, F-111, Tornado, MiG-23, etc --
and why did they go out of fashion?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

check with Janes.........

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:43:50 -0400,
wrote:
Iran's F14's have been grounded for years and have not flown at all due
to
lack of spares etc.

Don you have a cite for that? And for the general servicability of
aircraft in the Iranian Air Force? The impression I had was that
Iran was having some success in making its own spare parts and/or
buying new components, e.g from China.

On a more general note, why was there a fashion for swing-wing
aircraft in the 60s and 70s -- F-14, F-111, Tornado, MiG-23, etc --
and why did they go out of fashion?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400, wrote:
check with Janes.........

Can you bev more specific?

BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
against Usenet conventionds.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

who cares,

As I said read Janes, they have it all,

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400,
wrote:
check with Janes.........

Can you bev more specific?

BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
against Usenet conventionds.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

wrote in message
...
who cares,

As I said read Janes, they have it all,

As a matter of fact, if at all, the Jane's has the least useful information
about the Iranian Air Force: their recently published book of "World Air
Forces" is very poor to this topic.

To keep the long story short: no, it wasn't the "Irangate" nor Oliver North,
but many other factors which kept the Iranian F-14-fleet afloat, in working
order, and extremely useful and dangerous. Approx 60 airframes remain
serviceable: while a number is circled through storage, so to better
distribute the number of hours flown per airframe, and also always have an
attrition reserve in peace, the IACI (Iranian Aircraft Industries) and other
Iranian companies, as well as the so-called "Self-Sufficiency Jihad Team" of
the IRIAF - meanwhile developed the capability to produce no less but 95% of
spare parts for their Tomcats. Consequently, the fleet not only massively
participated in the IPGW against Iraq (scoring at least 130 kills against
Iraqi MiG-21/23/25s, Mirage F.1EQs, Su-20/22s, and Tu-22s), but is still
very much active and operational.

As a matter of fact, just last year the Iranians started production of a
reverse-engineered AIM-54, which even the USN considers equal to its latest
AIM-54Cs.

Nothing of this can be found in Jane's, of course: their reporting about
Iran in the recent years was simply sad.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

wrote in message . ..
who cares,

Most do.


As I said read Janes, they have it all,

Translation: "I got caught in a falsehood, and knowing I can't support
it with real evidence, I'll try to bluff by dragging in Janes..."


--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"

That laughing you are hearing is from the gallery of folks who realize
that your statement regarding Iranian F-14's having been grounded for
years is utter bovine excrement.

Brooks

R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:59:40 -0400,
wrote:
check with Janes.........

Can you bev more specific?

BTW, please don't top-post, it makes it hard to read and is
against Usenet conventionds.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:29:51 -0400, wrote:
who cares,

*plonk*

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?