A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13  
Old October 8th 03, 05:36 AM
Michael Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Michael Williamson
writes

Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the
weapons existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay
reportedly has
received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
anyway).



I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of hydrazine and
nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
hydrazine is widely used too)


As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in?



The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons, just with
limitations.


I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
usable only by the Scud. He could possibly be mistaken, or the
source for his information could be wrong, but I've not seen a
definitive refutation. His report may be found at the following
link (by the way, this was the only CIA search result from the
search string "Scud fuel." Later in the report he details the
claims that Scud fuel and oxidizer was manufactured in a factory
in or near Al Tariq, which apparently was their main
production source for concentrated Nitric Acid, along with other
conventional explosives and munitions. The reports of this
production have not been confirmed yet, being currently based
solely on witness testimony.

http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-...S-doc-number=1


Boy, that's a long URL. It might be easier to just go to www.cia.gov
and do the search yourself. The portion dealing with the fuel
production is located alongside the 'supporting images.' Nearby
are a few tidbits about Korea and technology transfers as well.
Most of the report is classified, so there likely isn't going to
be a lot of 'meat' in the unclassified report.

Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

Mike

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong Michael Petukhov Military Aviation 8 October 7th 03 10:54 PM
Mk 84 iron bomb version with depleted uranium? MCN Military Aviation 8 October 3rd 03 01:56 AM
AIRCRAFT MUNITIONS - THE COBALT BOMB Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 1 August 29th 03 09:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.