Not to sound like an F-22 cheerleader but I thought this was interesting. . .

And, if you had not noticed, the SU is about as stealthy as a 747.

If you had still not noticed, f22 and B2 are about as stealthy to multistatics
as a B52 to backscatterers.

Heck,in year 2004 we have still difficulty to explain some things that the
Germans and Brits knew in 40s to some people.

You can reduce backscaterers by hard body shaping very significantly,but
unfortunately you CANNOT do the same for the forward scatterers.That was the
lesson that Germans and Brits learned in 40s.
Thats also the reason why multistatic RCS of B2 is even greater than frontal
backscatterer RCS of B52.

Even Yale graduates should be able to understand that.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:53:25 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:

Pete,

No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think the
USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe at
the same time.

Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years,
it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening.

What an utter fool.

PLONK

Al Minyard

Actually, you are "not the least" qualified.

Al Minyard

Of course I'm not, Al: as you expertly explained, I'm "anti-US" and that
disqualifies me in all possible areas.

But, I'm relieved that you're "qualified".

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets
in
the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back
in
the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
there...

Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you read
any of my previous posts indicating this before?

You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still
awaiting
delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the
Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).

Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units, it
is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic.

So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any
kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic?

I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty of
them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you
anything else?

Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to ask.

Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in
the
same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you
can't seem to grasp that little fact.

Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you seen
this coming?

Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm
anti-US and not qualified.

There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown
earlier
(perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless),
then
it
was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first
time
only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).

Provide proof.

See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US -
like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal?

And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts....

It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on
Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste from
them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and
anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting electrons.
Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe.
Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more.

Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing
list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8

Cheers,

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog,
anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on
demand)
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed
with AIM-54s in combat

Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians
are still servicable though?

Of course: none. You know, ignoring potential threats, talking and -
foremost - guessing and wishing them away functions at best: the US history
confirms this beyond any doubt - and in quite some lenght.

Most people seemed pretty sure it was down
to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there
was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how
many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!)

How should I know? You were so kind to explain that I'm twisting electrons,
so I obviously can't answer your question without doing the same again.

I suggest you to ask Al instead: he'll confirm you that I'm not qualified to
answer any questions at all - not to talk about such stuff - and then he'll
explain you how many F-14s are there in Iran.

There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the
Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution
(either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans
or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too
western") ...

Of course: you know, while being confinned to their living spaces in the
days while waiting some plane to fly them out of Iran for something as
laughable as threats for their life, in the winter and spring of 1979, the
US contract personnel (of course, especially "Grumman technicians"!), CIA
agents etc. - you know: everybody who wanted - could walk around the IIAF
airbases at free, and sabotage whatever they wanted to sabotage. And so they
had all the time of the world and plenty of opportunities to sabotage no
less but 77 F-14s and something like 260 remaining AIM-54s distributed on
three different airfields and (in the case of the AIM-54s) even in
underground facilities. Of course, it's a little bit funny (if not outright
silly) they sabotaged them only so that they could not use AIM-54s, even if
the AWG-9s remained intact and functional so that all the "experts" could
later report that Iranians use their F-14s as "mini-AWACS"....But, heh, who
cares about this being logical or not?

Oh, and the wolf ate Little Red Riddinghood. True story! (I've seen it on
TV)

[1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the
capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ...

Clear stuff: how can one expect the Mullahs to know what to do with that
large chunk of titanium and other metals that the Kafirs in the West call
"F-14" (spelling?) - or something like that?

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************

Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed
with AIM-54s in combat
Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians
are still servicable though?
Of course: none.

That was actually a serious question ... However I see it was a question
that seems to be beyond your ability to answer ...

Most people seemed pretty sure it was down
to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there
was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how
many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!)
How should I know?

In your earlier post (MsgID: ) you
claimed "in 2007 or 2008, the IRIAF is going to stand alone with the
longest-ranged air-to-air missile world-wide" ... Clearly assuming that
you had some facts (such as current, approximate, numbers of servicable
Tomcats) to back up this statement was an error of mine ...

You were so kind to explain that I'm twisting electrons, so I obviously
can't answer your question without doing the same again.

So you object when I attribute things you said to you? shrugs Each to
their own I guess ... but if you wheren't prepared to have your words
attributed to you, why did you say them in the first place? grins

I suggest you to ask Al instead: he'll confirm you that I'm not qualified to
answer any questions at all - not to talk about such stuff - and then he'll
explain you how many F-14s are there in Iran.

Well, clearly the number of servicable Tomcats is going to be somewhere
between 79 and 0, and given they've been in service (or not, as the case
may be), including combat time, for over 20 years with only minimal spares
support at best it would seem reasonable to assume they've been subject
to at least *some* attrition.

Now given that Tom has now confessed that he has no idea how many, if
any, are still servicable does anyone else want to take a stab?

There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the
Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution
(either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans
or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too
western") ...
Oh, and the wolf ate Little Red Riddinghood. True story! (I've seen it on
TV)

Conflicting - To be in opposition; to be contradictory.

Hence, "there also seems to be conflicting reports about $THING" means
some say $THING happened others don't, or say it didn't happen ...

[1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the
capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ...
Clear stuff: how can one expect the Mullahs to know what to do with that
large chunk of titanium and other metals that the Kafirs in the West call
"F-14" (spelling?) - or something like that?

Ah, so to your mind all 25 of those Tomcats where fully servicable in all
respects? I'd be interested as to what leads you to that conclusion,
indeed such interest was largely the reason for my original posting.
Personally I'd say that the fly-past proves they had at least 25 that
could fly (on that particular day), but it says nothing about their
capabilities wrt the AWG-9, Pheonix capability, functioning afterburners,
wing-sweep capability ... etc
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets
in
the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown"
back
in
the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes
against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have
there...

Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you
read
any of my previous posts indicating this before?

Strange as it may seem, many of us do not hang upon your every word--I can
only go off what you say *now*, and that was, to quote: "...the first blow
in such a scenario would obviously be delivered by the Chinese; and in that
case the USAF would not be in offensive, but on defensive right from the
start..."


You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS"
will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still
awaiting
delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed
the
Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago).

Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units,
it
is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic.

Considering that your numbers, not to mention your conclusions, contradict
what many other sources indicate, including the latest DoD report, which
indicates that the PLAAF *might* be capable of taking on a joint USAF/ROCAF
force sometime after 2010: "The PLAAF's primary strength remains its
size--approximately 3,000 combat-capable aircraft. Also, the PLAAF and
PLANAF are undergoing significant upgrades, whichinclude acquiring
fourth-generation aircraft, air defense systems, advanced munitions, and
C4ISR equipment. These upgrades eventually will improve the PLAAF's
capability to conduct both offensive and defensive operations. In addition,
air combat tactics continue to evolve, and training is becoming more
advanced, though both remain behind Western standards. By 2010-15, the PLAAF
will have made additional progress toward becoming a modern air force and
will be equipped with modern weapons that most likelywill enable the PLA to
execute the regional combat operations its current military doctrine
envisions."

That is a far cry from what you have been braying about, and it would be
hard to point to the DoD's accessment as being overly optimistic--this is
after all one of the foundation documents trotted out when budgeting comes
to the table.


So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any
kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic?

Because you have a habit of tossing out unspupported "facts" that do not
jive with other available sources.


I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty
of
them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you
anything else?

An idiot, perhaps? But then again, you remain firmly convinced your version
of reality is quite different from that portrayed by folks like the DoD,
right?


Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to
ask.

Apparently he hit the nail on the head in this case--anyone claiming that
the PLAAF would field 300 J-10/FC-1 aircraft over the next 12 to 18 months,
as you have, is obviously a bit lacking in qualifications, namely common
sense.


Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is
that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in
the
same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry
you
can't seem to grasp that little fact.

Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you
seen
this coming?

I am guessing english is not your first language-- that last question makes
no sense whatsoever.


Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources:

Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm
anti-US and not qualified.

From what I have seen thus far, only the latter really applies here.


There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is
reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown
earlier
(perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless),
then
it
was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the
specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the
first
time
only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year).

Provide proof.

See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US -
like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal?

So, another unsupported "fact" you have trotted out--figures. Your
dedication to the practice of snipping all of that stuff you don't like from
the conversation, even though it is still the subject of debate, is another
little trait of your's that gets a bit tiresome, though since you have a
demonstrable tendency of denying your own previous statements it is probably
understandable--why make it easy for your opponent to zing those direct
quotes back at you, eh?


And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts....

It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on
Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste
from
them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and
anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting
electrons.
Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe.
Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more.

Actually, you seem to fit quite well into the mold of "New Journalism"--the
facts be damned, your personal views and "hidden sources" are paramount. You
might want to drop a resume off at the New York Times--they have
demonstrated a recent propensity to like journalists with that kind of
philosophy.

Brooks


Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing
list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8

Cheers,

Tom Cooper
Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian
Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog,
anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on
demand)
Vienna, Austria

*************************************************

Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php

Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM

*************************************************