Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message
m...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt
wrote:

Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened
to
attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?



Not just someone, but rafsanjani himself who still have power in Iran,
has said not long ago that Iran should nuke Israel:


http://www.iran-press-service.com/ar...ats_141201.htm

Ah, of course. I understand now everything. This statement is worth as much
as when one of the radical Jewish parties in Israel declares something of
the kind....


I leave the interpretation for you (and for the other NG readers) in
this case.
You asked:
Has anybody in Tehran threatened to attack Dimona? To "burn down" the
whole Israel or whatever else?

So I showed you that the answer is yes.

Also:

1. Not even _one_ statement by _any_ party in Israel threatened to
destroy Iran in the last decade. I challenge you to stand behind your
words and to provide a link to prove them.
2. Rafsanjani is not just a non-important extremist party. He is the
former president of Iran and has a lot of power to this day.


Clearly, that's a part of the political and religious life in the Middle
East: I guess it might be not a bad idea to let all such characters solve
the matter between themselves.



see above



And if it's not enough that the clergi their is anxious to nuke Israel
then their "reformist" president, khatami was also throwing poison at
Israel when Iran introduced the Shihab 3.

He stated that Israel is a threat for security in the Middle East. And, that
is truth. Nothing else.



He was doing it in the ceremony of the introduction of the Shihab 3,
and Israel was the only foreign country mentioned in that ceremony.
Anyone who knows something about international relations would tell
you that your analysis is wrong. This was a direct threat on Israel.

Also, see the interpretation of Khatami's reference to Israel in
Iranscope. I posted it bellow.


Strong Iran is a guarantee for the peace in the Persian Gulf area, as - and
this is something everybody interested should know - as soon as Iran is not
strong there is a war, as somebody attacks it.



Could be.
But lets not forget that "Tehran threatened to attack Dimona, or to
"burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else".



Did you notice the difference between Iran's and Israel's approach?

No. I haven't. Sharon also threatened already several times that Israel will
destroy Bushehr. There were also threats with other stuff.


I don't remember Sharon publicly ever threatened to attack any nuclear
facility in Iran. Not even once.
If you could bring a prove to your claims it could be very helpful for
this debate.
I follow closely this subject and Israel declared that there is a
growing threat from Iran, but never talked about military action to
neutralize this threat.

I'm posting again the official Israeli Foreign Ministry announced.
This announcement was made after the ceremony of the introduction of
the Shihab 3.

"
the Foreign Ministry said yesterday
it does not perceive Iran as an enemy and does not threaten the
Iranian regime.
"



Even when the F
As said: that's how specific countries communicate on official lines since
decades. Sorry, I don't see the difference.



I'm also posting an article from Iranscope:

Who is Sam Ghandchi so that you consider him that authoritative?


info about Sam Ghandchi:
http://www.ghandchi.com/05-My_Profile.htm

Sam Ghandchi is an Iranian futurist and a journalist. I find his
opinion as representing the mainstream opinions of the exiled Iranian
community.

please read the article I posted in my previous post.



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

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in message
...
Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Quant wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Arie Kazachin wrote:
In message - "Matt A.00 01 is
Matthew Ackerman" writes:
snip

Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that
way as the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts.

According to this logic of yours: buying spare parts = bad.

No not bad just added expense that the Israeli budget even with the US aid
could not afford.

I don't remember to have ever heard about any such problems. As a matter of
fact, the Israeli defence budget doubled between 1972 and 1974, and at the
time the USA - also in the sence of the Nixon's Doctrine - trippled the
worth of their aid projects for Israel. The problems with the Israeli
defence budgets which not even the US aid could support developed only in
1986-1987, at the time of terrible economic problems and a massive inflation
in Israel.

Also having more piltots then planes allowed for more
long time missions when the same pilot would not be taking that plane out
again that day but another pilot would who was rested and well briefed on
the next mission well prior to the plane landing and being refitted for
that
mission.

But how many really "long-range" missions were flown in 1973? The most
distanced targets were Homs in Syria and el-Mansoura in Egypt. That's what -
250-300km, and that because of the over-the-sea leg, in order to avoid the
enemy SAM-belts.

Besides, this argument of yours is contradictive to your explanations about
pilots flying five and more sorties a day: why should they, if there were
enough pilots?

As said: the tempo of operations was nowhere as high as in 1973 as it was on
THE FIRST DAY (only) in 1967. I tried to explain why several times already,
and can't help if you ignored this.

Shooting down most of their best pilots supressed them to
defense only.

Err, actually the Egyptians reorganized and from the third day of the war
hit hard on Israeli troops moving along the roads on Sinai. In that sence,
the EAF lost most of its combat strenght, that's truth, but it never quit
fighting.

The Syrians lost too many planes also in one day engagement.

The Syrians lost most of their planes on the ground. In air battles fought
over the Syrian airfields it was 6:2 for the Israelis, if I recall all the
details correctly. In total, however, the SyAAF was not as heavily damaged
as the EAF, and certainly not as heavily as the RJAF (which lost of all its
combat aircraft) - and none of the top Syrian pilot was killed (well, not in
1967: two or three were KIA in the War of Attrition; one in 1973, and at
least two in 1982).

By the third day no arab air force threatened Israel or its forces.

You should ask the Israeli vets about this: there is even pictorial evidence
about "non-threatening" (Algerian-supplied) Egyptian MiG-17s bombing Israeli
column on Sinai, and several trucks going up in flame... Just because the
Israeli media is not talking about such attacks (over 100) it doesn't mean
they never happened.

In the six day war also a Russian Frieter and 2
ships of their line were attacked in Port Alexandria. They had no air
cover
to speak of and were heavily enough damaged to flee the waters entirely to
Lybian Waters and harbor to perform some repairs and set off again to sea
ASAP.

Aha. What was the name of this freighter? This is the first time I heard
about any kind of air strikes against targets in the Alexandria area, in
June 1967. They are not mentioned in any of at least a dozen of books and
three dozens of articles I have to the topic of that air war....

After those first three days the majority of IAF activities was close
ground support missions to take out bunkers, Tanks, other Armored Viechles
as well as troops. This is how the Egyptian and Syrian Ground forces kept
finding any defendable position unatenable.

Not truth either. Egyptian Gen. Amer did a mistake (because of which he was
later relieved of command and commited suicide) by ordering the troops on
Sinai to pull back towards the Canal. In this way he draw his troops out of
their well-dug in positions into the open, where they were hit by the air.
This pull-back resulted in a rout, in which the Egyptians suffered over
30.000 KIA, MIA, and injured for almost nothing in return. If they remained
in their positions along the Israeli border and fought it is 100% sure they
would have not suffered similar losses.

The Syrians, on the contrary, just sat there and wait, and then - when the
Israelis were on the end with their strenght, they started pulling out of
Golan. They were not routed, however: quite on the contrary, they inflicted
heavy losses to the IDF. The 7th AB, for example, had only seven tanks
remaining at the time of the cease-fire.

In close ground support flying the pilot must be well rested. When he
takes
off he only knows what sector on he is to patrol. He has no designated
targets to be briefed on. His targets are communicated to him from the
ground forces that need an airstrike at a set of co-ordinates.

Yeah, this was tried on 7, 8, 9 and 10 October 1973, with the result that
the IDF/AF lost over 80 combat aircraft shot down and over 150 damaged...

If there is
time he does a flyover at susonic speed and Id's his target(s) and then on
the next pass unloads it. Sometimes he is asked for specific ordinence
and
a direction of the attack. That is common when they are against a line of
heavy firing from hidden troops. They ask for Nalpalm from one direction
from a start point. That causes a large line of incinerating fire that
cannot be put out till it all burns off. The pilot only knows that he and
the number of planes that will be in that sector. Nothing is known about
what targets he will hit, when or where in that sector. If on his return
to
the field he still has ordinence and can find a target of oportunity he
will
use what is left to take that out.

Sorry, but I doubt I ever read anything as senseless as this.

Briefing time is not needed for those missions, just pilots that are
rested
and planes loaded with the ordinence and fuel.

Aha. Briefings are not needed now either? You don't really know what are you
talking about, or?

Not every pilot
could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war.

As a matter of fact, nobody can do this. Not "even" the Israelis:
please, permit them to remain human beings. Four sorties a day - and
for a single day - yes, but that's already the limit. Three a day for
duration of three, four, perhaps five days. That can function too.
But more would only decrease the capability of the pilot: it would
simply drain him down.


But make the ratio of pilots to planes heavier on the number of pilots to
planes and the IAF could give the pilots a break after short periods and
less sorties. That is how the IAF opperated in both the Six Day and Yom
Kippur Wars as well as against the Palestinians in Lebanon. Any tired
pilot
could be given a break when he landed and another pilot would be available
to relieve him for some time to rest.

In the war, Matt, there are no "tired" or "rested" pilots: there are pilots
that can fly and others that can't. Period.

You have several combat-experienced pilots on this NG: go and ask Ed Rasimus
if he would explain it any other way.

So while they refitted the
planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up,
they
often
changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions
to get some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place.

Could you name a single Israeli pilot that flew five sorties in one
day, either in 1967 or 1973? I couldn't. Feel free to correct me, but
I can only remember several that flew four sorties on the first day
of the Six Day War, not a single one that flew as much in 1973.


Over the 1/4 of the first wave against Egypt flew 5 sortees the first day
in
'67.

Look: I asked you for names. I can mention names of the one or two IDF/AF
pilots that flew four missions on that day. You say one quarter of them did
so. OK. Can you mention even one name of an IDF/AF pilot that flew five
sorties on that day?

The story about this was on the History Channel as well
as in a book by one of the lead pilots, (I do not rememeber his name).
The
Show on the History Channel was one of a series called "Air Power".

Oh, now I understand everything. Thank's Lord, there is a "History Channel".
You never came to the idea that they could be wrong about this?

Have you ever heard about some stuff called "books" or something similar?
I've heard these are made of paper and ink, and one might be forced to go to
the so-called "book-shops" or "libraries" in order to get them, and then
even have to "read" (spelling?) these too....

But, they say one can learn quite some stuff from reading these strange
things.

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:39:16 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:20 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
wrote:

Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...

Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and ICBMS,
and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read anything till
here about "IRBMS".

IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.

It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere between
1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
"tactical" or "short range".

Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by
nation and by catagory not mention them?

Because you're not using it properly. Get your copy of Janes Strategic
Weapons Systems off the shelf and start reading, there's quite a lot
of data on IRBMs in there, plus the contents of all the strategic
weapons treaties from SALT 1 onwards.

Peter Kemp

Funny the latest copy I have the update for calls them Medium Range not
Intermediate, perhaps they are using both terms based on the person that
does that particular entry. It was also called Medium Range when they all
the sources about the Cuban Missile Crisis describe the class of Missiles
being set up by the Soviets there and when they talk of the old Jupiter
sites in Turkey of that time.

Well, my copy of JSWS is at work so it will have to wait until Monday.
However, after a 15 second search on the internet I found the
following definition...

SRBM- Short Range Ballistic Missiles (0 - 1,000 km)
MRBM- Medium Range Ballistic Missile (1,000 - 2,500 km)
IRBM- Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (2,500 - 3,500 km)
LRICBM- Limited Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (3,500 -
8,000 km)
FRICBM- Full Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (8,000 - 12,000
km)

at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...e-overview.htm


And

Missile Ranges
SRBM
Short-range ballistic missile (1,000 km)
MRBM
Medium-range ballistic missile (1,000-3,000 km)
IRBM
Intermediate-range ballistic missile (3,000-5,500 km)
ICBM
Intercontinental ballistic missile (5,500+ km)

at

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.asp

So both sites agree that MRBM and IRBM are different, even if they
disagree on the definitions. Watch this space for the Janes
definitions.

Peter Kemp

Please Tom, keep your humor in check, just when I relax to take a sip
of tea I get to the end of your posting, and read about
'books'.... please stop before it is fatal to someone!
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 17 Sep 2003 08:41:16 -0700, robert arndt wrote:

Tehran should be a smoking ruin by now,
[...]
I only live for the day [when I can] watch as Tehran disappears in
a mushroom cloud.

When are you growing the toothbrush mustache, Bob?


Let me get this straight Phil, buddy. You compare me to Hitler

- errm, where has Phil done this?

because
I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
the State of Israel with IRBMs (which for all we know in the future
might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...

Has Tehran threatened to attack Israel? Has anybody in Tehran threatened to
attack Dimona? To "burn down" the whole Israel or whatever else?

You're obviously mixing Israeli and Iraqi official statements with those
from Iran.

Let me help you: even the stupids in power in Tehran haven't issued any
similar statements. The "glorious" Israeli leaders have, however.

yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
Israel,

You also always forget to say something about the British, US and
Israeli-state sponsored terrorism against Iran since over 80 years. So what?

it's intense historical hatred of the Jews

BS: the Jews are still living in Israel. Even this clerical regime haven't
"destroyed" them as your statement would indicate. How comes this?

How could it be Israel almost went to a war against Syria, Jordan, and Iraq
in 1980, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Iran and in support of Tehran?

How could it be the two countries are actually (even if clandestinelly)
activelly cooperating on a number of fields ever since?

(including support
for the Nazi holocaust of WW2),

Aha, now the Persians should have also supported the holocaust in the Europe
too?

How? What have they done in support of the holocaust? Refused to collaborate
with the British or ruled by the British marionette, and then also let
British and Soviet troops be stationed in their country? Was that
"supporting the holocaust"?

and the fact that it is actively
seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
directed against Israel.

Israel is actively developing and producing nuclear weapons already since
the mid 1960s with sole purpose of threatening its neighbours. Israel would
not admit this (nor Israel cares about all the international regulations it
broke or ignored), but explains this (indirectly) with the need for
self-defence.

Has Iran no right to self-defence only because it is ruled by a highly
unpopular (at home and abroad) regime?

It has the same rights like Israel. The difference is that the current
Israeli gov and such ignorants like you is not recognizing this: at earlier
times there was no problem regarding this fact between Jerusalem and Tehran.

Who's the fascist then?

Let me see: a country ruled by the militants, breaking international
regulations, ignoring decisions by international organizations, producing
WMDs, massively ignoring human rights, purposedly targeting civilians, being
aggressive against its neighbours and holding their territory occupied right
since its invention... Who could this be according to your own logic?

The US should have dealt with Tehran during
the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
either. Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
war with them.

Two moments are important in this statement:
a) according to you it appears that 4.5 millions (or how many?) of Jews
living in Israel and several millions more living abroad should dictate over
200 millions of Arabs and 70 millions of Persians what to do and what not,
why, and where to do it?

b) you elected Reagan because he was negotiating with the Mullahs, so that
these have held US hostages and not released them until exactly 30 minutes
after he moved into the White House. With other words: your own president
has neglected the safety of your co-citizens, and has neglected his duty as
an influential politician to bring them back home, because this was in his
private interest. Not only this: he then has also supplied arms worth $3
billion to an enemy of the USA (despite an official embargo), paid back
several billions in Iranian money and assets (despite these officially being
frozen) as well as promised that he would never do anything against the new
regime in Tehran....

Well, you can now explain what a "good" and "tremendous" President Reagan
was - and (certainly to your complete surprise) I would even agree regarding
many things he did, including his Iran-related politics. But, you can't deny
that he actually made himself guilty of comitting a traitory, and otherwise
you're permanently showing how stupid and ignorant and supportive for
aggressive actions you are, and how easy to manipulate by your own
politicians and propaganda.

As such, you can't be considered as a serious discutant on topics like
these.

The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
pro-democracy elements in Iranian society but has failed.

Truth: the US has indeed repeatedly won over the pro-democracy elements in
Iran. It removed a democratically ellected president there (in 1952) and
supported and financed brutal and oppressive regimes (not only the Shah, but
also the Mullahs) and Iranian terrorists (MKE/MKO etc.) instead.

Iran is
developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
State.

Can you offer us even one single document that would confirm this and deny
any other purpose for such weapons being eventually in development in Iran?

I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts. And if Tehran is someday
wiped off the earth as a consequence of their own
anti-semitism/arrogance then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over
it...

So, it's only so that you simply hate Persians.

Where's the problem, Rob? Even the son of your Persian neighbour drives a
better car than you? Well, we all know their predilection for BMWs.... Has
he a better house than you? Hm, well, must depend on what he earns... Or has
he simply a better-looking wife than you?

BTW, you know what's interesting too? Just yesterday I chatted with several
Israeli Yom Kippour vets: the people I'm sure you consider a kind of
superhuman warriors, that win all, everything, and everywhere. They are
feed-up with wars, pain, blood, broken and missing limbs, suffering, terror
and destruction, and would prefer peace with Arabs and anybody else in the
ME to anything. Just such like you, which never put even their small toes
into danger - but can babble from their comfortable chairs with 5.000km of
ocean of safety between them and any direct threat - can support such
nonsensical ideas like the use of nuclear weapons anywhere at all.


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

Nice speech Tom... running for the Iranian Pro-Democracy Freedom &
Human Rights Party?... oops, Iran doesn't allow political opposition
nor care for human rights. Iran is too busy these days with its covert
nuclear weapons program and terrorist funding... the ultimate goal of
which is to eliminate the Jewish state like all their neighbors (aka
Islamic cohorts).
BTW, I live in Northern California which is in range of nuclear
weapons from the FSU, Chinese missile subs, and future DPRK 3-stage
missiles... not to mention the threat every American faces with
nuclear terrorism, should Al Qaida get their grubby hands on a small
tactical device or ULY micronuke.
Tom, please stick to co-authoring pro-Iranian fiction and leave
reality based dialogue to others.

Rob

Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Quant wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Arie Kazachin wrote:
In message - "Matt A.00 01
is Matthew Ackerman" writes:
snip

Israel during the wars often found themeselves with
more Combat ready pilots than planes. Actually it was always that
way as the planes meant buying planes and a lot of spare parts.

According to this logic of yours: buying spare parts = bad.

No not bad just added expense that the Israeli budget even with the
US aid could not afford.

I don't remember to have ever heard about any such problems. As a
matter of fact, the Israeli defence budget doubled between 1972 and
1974, and at the time the USA - also in the sence of the Nixon's
Doctrine - trippled the worth of their aid projects for Israel. The
problems with the Israeli defence budgets which not even the US aid
could support developed only in 1986-1987, at the time of terrible
economic problems and a massive inflation in Israel.

Also having more piltots then planes allowed for more
long time missions when the same pilot would not be taking that
plane out again that day but another pilot would who was rested and
well briefed on the next mission well prior to the plane landing and
being refitted for
that
mission.

But how many really "long-range" missions were flown in 1973? The most
distanced targets were Homs in Syria and el-Mansoura in Egypt. That's
what - 250-300km, and that because of the over-the-sea leg, in order
to avoid the enemy SAM-belts.

Besides, this argument of yours is contradictive to your explanations
about pilots flying five and more sorties a day: why should they, if
there were enough pilots?

As said: the tempo of operations was nowhere as high as in 1973 as it
was on THE FIRST DAY (only) in 1967. I tried to explain why several
times already, and can't help if you ignored this.

Shooting down most of their best pilots supressed them to
defense only.

Err, actually the Egyptians reorganized and from the third day of the
war hit hard on Israeli troops moving along the roads on Sinai. In
that sence, the EAF lost most of its combat strenght, that's truth,
but it never quit fighting.

The Syrians lost too many planes also in one day engagement.

The Syrians lost most of their planes on the ground. In air battles
fought over the Syrian airfields it was 6:2 for the Israelis, if I
recall all the details correctly. In total, however, the SyAAF was
not as heavily damaged as the EAF, and certainly not as heavily as
the RJAF (which lost of all its combat aircraft) - and none of the
top Syrian pilot was killed (well, not in 1967: two or three were KIA
in the War of Attrition; one in 1973, and at least two in 1982).

By the third day no arab air force threatened Israel or its forces.

You should ask the Israeli vets about this: there is even pictorial
evidence about "non-threatening" (Algerian-supplied) Egyptian MiG-17s
bombing Israeli column on Sinai, and several trucks going up in
flame... Just because the Israeli media is not talking about such
attacks (over 100) it doesn't mean they never happened.

In the six day war also a Russian Frieter and 2
ships of their line were attacked in Port Alexandria. They had no
air
cover
to speak of and were heavily enough damaged to flee the waters
entirely to Lybian Waters and harbor to perform some repairs and set
off again to sea ASAP.

Aha. What was the name of this freighter? This is the first time I
heard about any kind of air strikes against targets in the Alexandria
area, in June 1967. They are not mentioned in any of at least a dozen
of books and three dozens of articles I have to the topic of that air
war....

After those first three days the majority of IAF activities was close
ground support missions to take out bunkers, Tanks, other Armored
Viechles as well as troops. This is how the Egyptian and Syrian
Ground forces kept finding any defendable position unatenable.

Not truth either. Egyptian Gen. Amer did a mistake (because of which
he was later relieved of command and commited suicide) by ordering
the troops on Sinai to pull back towards the Canal. In this way he
draw his troops out of their well-dug in positions into the open,
where they were hit by the air. This pull-back resulted in a rout, in
which the Egyptians suffered over
30.000 KIA, MIA, and injured for almost nothing in return. If they
remained in their positions along the Israeli border and fought it is
100% sure they would have not suffered similar losses.

The Syrians, on the contrary, just sat there and wait, and then -
when the Israelis were on the end with their strenght, they started
pulling out of Golan. They were not routed, however: quite on the
contrary, they inflicted heavy losses to the IDF. The 7th AB, for
example, had only seven tanks remaining at the time of the cease-fire.

In close ground support flying the pilot must be well rested. When
he
takes
off he only knows what sector on he is to patrol. He has no
designated targets to be briefed on. His targets are communicated
to him from the ground forces that need an airstrike at a set of
co-ordinates.

Yeah, this was tried on 7, 8, 9 and 10 October 1973, with the result
that the IDF/AF lost over 80 combat aircraft shot down and over 150
damaged...

If there is
time he does a flyover at susonic speed and Id's his target(s) and
then on the next pass unloads it. Sometimes he is asked for
specific ordinence
and
a direction of the attack. That is common when they are against a
line of heavy firing from hidden troops. They ask for Nalpalm from
one direction from a start point. That causes a large line of
incinerating fire that cannot be put out till it all burns off. The
pilot only knows that he and the number of planes that will be in
that sector. Nothing is known about what targets he will hit, when
or where in that sector. If on his return
to
the field he still has ordinence and can find a target of oportunity
he
will
use what is left to take that out.

Sorry, but I doubt I ever read anything as senseless as this.

Briefing time is not needed for those missions, just pilots that are
rested
and planes loaded with the ordinence and fuel.

Aha. Briefings are not needed now either? You don't really know what
are you talking about, or?

Not every pilot
could fly 24 * 7 any way for the entire war.

As a matter of fact, nobody can do this. Not "even" the Israelis:
please, permit them to remain human beings. Four sorties a day - and
for a single day - yes, but that's already the limit. Three a day
for duration of three, four, perhaps five days. That can function
too. But more would only decrease the capability of the pilot: it
would simply drain him down.


But make the ratio of pilots to planes heavier on the number of
pilots to planes and the IAF could give the pilots a break after
short periods and less sorties. That is how the IAF opperated in
both the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars as well as against the
Palestinians in Lebanon. Any tired
pilot
could be given a break when he landed and another pilot would be
available to relieve him for some time to rest.

In the war, Matt, there are no "tired" or "rested" pilots: there are
pilots that can fly and others that can't. Period.

You have several combat-experienced pilots on this NG: go and ask Ed
Rasimus if he would explain it any other way.

So while they refitted the
planes with more fuel, refilled Gpods, and other weapons used up,
they
often
changed pilots allowing the pilot that already flew 1 to 5 missions
to get some rest and a fresh rested pilot took his place.

Could you name a single Israeli pilot that flew five sorties in one
day, either in 1967 or 1973? I couldn't. Feel free to correct me,
but I can only remember several that flew four sorties on the first
day of the Six Day War, not a single one that flew as much in 1973.


Over the 1/4 of the first wave against Egypt flew 5 sortees the
first day
in
'67.

Look: I asked you for names. I can mention names of the one or two
IDF/AF pilots that flew four missions on that day. You say one
quarter of them did so. OK. Can you mention even one name of an
IDF/AF pilot that flew five sorties on that day?

The story about this was on the History Channel as well
as in a book by one of the lead pilots, (I do not rememeber his
name).
The
Show on the History Channel was one of a series called "Air Power".

Oh, now I understand everything. Thank's Lord, there is a "History
Channel". You never came to the idea that they could be wrong about
this?

Have you ever heard about some stuff called "books" or something
similar? I've heard these are made of paper and ink, and one might be
forced to go to the so-called "book-shops" or "libraries" in order to
get them, and then even have to "read" (spelling?) these too....

But, they say one can learn quite some stuff from reading these
strange things.

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

They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro
where some of the air bases had been moved after the Six Day War. They flew
and bombed the norther Air Bases in Syia nearer to Turkey as well. A lot
further than you incicate. Those are excptions I will admit but they were
long and strenous and tired those pilots out as they could not fly anything
near direct routes due to the SAM Threats. Also A single flight for ground
support was several sortees all rolled into one. They might be called at
times to make 6 or more runs at enemy ground troops, armor, or
installations, as well as field artilery. After these they needed relief,
there is something very taxing coming in at 50 feet and bombing an enemy
position when a miss could kill a lot of IDF troops. So the usual pattern
(History of Air Power) was to relieve them as soon as they landed and ready
the aircraft with a fresh, rested pilot for the next ground suppot mission.
At times IAF Pilots were called in to hit troops less than 100 yards away
from the IDF soldiers that called in the strike. How many time could you do
that type of sortee and keep at it? The quicker they got to rest and try
to relax the quiker they rested enough to do it all over again. Each plane
could fly double the number of such missions and not burn out the pilots.


--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

Peter Kemp wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:39:16 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:04:20 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew
Ackerman" wrote:

Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...

Can anyone tell me what "IRBMS" are. I know about ABMS and
ICBMS, and S.R.B.M. as well as M.R.B.MS are but never read
anything till here about "IRBMS".

IRBM = Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.

It's the class of ballistic missiles with a range somewhere
between
1.500 and 3.000km. They are not "intercontinental", but also not
"tactical" or "short range".

Then why does Jane's Catalog of weapons held by all nations by
nation and by catagory not mention them?

Because you're not using it properly. Get your copy of Janes
Strategic Weapons Systems off the shelf and start reading, there's
quite a lot of data on IRBMs in there, plus the contents of all the
strategic weapons treaties from SALT 1 onwards.

Peter Kemp

Funny the latest copy I have the update for calls them Medium Range
not Intermediate, perhaps they are using both terms based on the
person that does that particular entry. It was also called Medium
Range when they all the sources about the Cuban Missile Crisis
describe the class of Missiles being set up by the Soviets there and
when they talk of the old Jupiter sites in Turkey of that time.

Well, my copy of JSWS is at work so it will have to wait until Monday.
However, after a 15 second search on the internet I found the
following definition...

SRBM- Short Range Ballistic Missiles (0 - 1,000 km)
MRBM- Medium Range Ballistic Missile (1,000 - 2,500 km)
IRBM- Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (2,500 - 3,500 km)
LRICBM- Limited Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (3,500 -
8,000 km)
FRICBM- Full Range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (8,000 - 12,000
km)

at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...e-overview.htm


And

Missile Ranges
SRBM
Short-range ballistic missile (1,000 km)
MRBM
Medium-range ballistic missile (1,000-3,000 km)
IRBM
Intermediate-range ballistic missile (3,000-5,500 km)
ICBM
Intercontinental ballistic missile (5,500+ km)

at

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles.asp

So both sites agree that MRBM and IRBM are different, even if they
disagree on the definitions. Watch this space for the Janes
definitions.

Peter Kemp

Thank you. I will also try to re-read the section in Jane's. They may be
different and I then missed that. Hey I am only human :-)

--�
MattA
?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives

Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00

Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in message
...
Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Tom Cooper wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Quant wrote:
"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in
message ...
Arie Kazachin wrote:
In message - "Matt A.00 01
is Matthew Ackerman" writes:
snip

They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro
where some of the air bases had been moved after the Six Day War.

Just a second: in your post above you said this happened during the Six Day
War. Now you say it happened afterwards. Would you be so kind to agree with
yourself so we could finally find out when exactly this happened?

They flew
and bombed the norther Air Bases in Syia nearer to Turkey as well.

When?

In 1967, the northernmost Syrian airfields hit by the IDF/AF were near
al-Ladhiqiyah and T.4/Tiyas.

In 1973, no airfields in either area were hit.

A lot
further than you incicate.

Where?

Those are excptions I will admit but they were
long and strenous and tired those pilots out as they could not fly
anything
near direct routes due to the SAM Threats. Also A single flight for ground
support was several sortees all rolled into one. They might be called at
times to make 6 or more runs at enemy ground troops, armor, or
installations, as well as field artilery.

The situation in 1973 was so that by the time they would try to make the
second run on their targets most of the Israeli aircraft were either shot
down or at least damaged. That's what happened to the 201st Sqn IDF/AF,
which lost 6 Phantoms during the Op Dogman 5, on the morning of 7 October
1973. This included the F-4E, flown by unit commander: he was shot down
after he missed the target on the first run, turned around and tried it
again....

One of those strange things of paper and ink I described in my last post,
the book with the strange title "Israel's Best Defence", written (former
IDF/AF pilot) Col. Elizer "Cheetah" Cohen describes this in detail.

Cohen was brazen enough in that book to say that he participated in the wars
1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Yet, nowhere in that book is he describing
anything of what you're talking about. Quite on the contrary. What do you
think, could it be he knows it better than you or the History Channel?

After these they needed relief,
there is something very taxing coming in at 50 feet and bombing an enemy
position when a miss could kill a lot of IDF troops.

Really?!?!? You got to be kiddin....

So, how it then came they flew five missions a day?

So the usual pattern
(History of Air Power) was to relieve them as soon as they landed and
ready
the aircraft with a fresh, rested pilot for the next ground suppot
mission.

Are you sure? They really put _fresh_ pilots into their planes? How fresh
were these? Factory-fresh, as fresh as wet paint, or as fresh as the sushi
in the local Jap restaurant?

BTW, what is "History of Air Power"? Another show on the History Channel?

At times IAF Pilots were called in to hit troops less than 100 yards away
from the IDF soldiers that called in the strike. How many time could you
do
that type of sortee and keep at it?

Well, let's see: the USAF, USN and USMC Scooter and Phantom and other pilots
were doing this at such places like Khe Sanh so two or three times a day.
Their usual tour of duty was either a year or so (USAF) or between six and
nine months (USN). Cambodian T-28 and MIG-17-pilots at least once a day at
the Plain de Jars and similar stinking holes. Their tours of duty lasted
until they were killed (either by the enemy or the own regime). The Iranian
F-5 pilots so two or three times at day at the Karaqeh Plain, Shalamcheh,
Majnoon, along the Shatt al-Arab and so many other places. They also had an
endless tour of duty: most of those still alive in 1988 had over 1.500
combat sorties under their belt...

Oh, sorry: your super-human Israeli pilots can't compare to all of these
examples: simply ignore what I said.

The quicker they got to rest and try
to relax the quiker they rested enough to do it all over again. Each
plane
could fly double the number of such missions and not burn out the pilots.

Matt, to be honest: if I hear once again a statement like this I'll probably
crack a rib and then have to pay a visit to my doctor. Please, have mercy
with my insurance.

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

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

Nice speech Tom... running for the Iranian Pro-Democracy Freedom &
Human Rights Party?... oops, Iran doesn't allow political opposition
nor care for human rights. Iran is too busy these days with its covert
nuclear weapons program and terrorist funding... the ultimate goal of
which is to eliminate the Jewish state like all their neighbors (aka
Islamic cohorts).

Rob,
you're a killer!

Actually I was just trying it as the top candidate of the Tudeh (Iranian
Communist Party) for Majlis. Namely, your info is wrong: political
opposition is permitted in Iran, albeit not all sorts of it. Given that we
helped the revolution in 1979, and it was actually us who brought the
Mullahs in power, from time to time we are permitted to work legaly. Our
ultimate goal is to impose the dictature of the workers in Iran, then the
whole Middle East, Andora, Vatikan, and then also in the USA.

....you just wait and see.

BTW, I live in Northern California which is in range of nuclear
weapons from the FSU, Chinese missile subs, and future DPRK 3-stage
missiles... not to mention the threat every American faces with
nuclear terrorism, should Al Qaida get their grubby hands on a small
tactical device or ULY micronuke.

You realy provoked me now, and I'm oh so mad now, I can't hold myself back
any more (standing up and pointing with the finger at you): Let me tell you
that all of you dirty capitalist and islamist extremist dogs will get what
you deserve, sooner or later. We will nuke you until you accept peace.

Tom, please stick to co-authoring pro-Iranian fiction and leave
reality based dialogue to others.

How could I?

But hell, what else can one like you expect from a pro-Iranian Communist
with imperial tendentions?

Oh, have I said "hell"? There is no such place.... OK. Well, then, in the
name of Holly Stallin and Mao, what else can an imperalist ******* like you
expect from a brave pro-Iranian Communist - like me?

In that sence, let me also warn you: in some other places, I'm also known as
a dangerous agent and an imperialist text-writer. Don't you dare to spread
your Zionist propaganda on me....

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

"Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman" wrote in message
...


They flew several sorties over Port Alexandria well to the East of Ciaro

BTW, Matt,
since when is Alexandria east of Cairo?

I tought on the History Channel they try to teach history, not re-draw the
maps....

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