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

(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 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)...
yet, you say nothing of Iran's blatant terrorist funding against
Israel, it's intense historical hatred of the Jews (including support
for the Nazi holocaust of WW2), and the fact that it is actively
seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
directed against Israel.
Who's the fascist then? 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. The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
pro-democracy elements in Iranian society but has failed. Iran is
developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying the Jewish
State. 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...

Rob

"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

"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
I may say I stand corrected on one thing though, I assumed that the
discussion was about the war time '67 and the War on Yom Kippur. If these
IAF pilots shot down Soviet Piloted Migs they were better pilots as the
Israelis fight most of their air to air battles with cannon fire not air
to
air heat seeking rockets.

Actually, the situation in that engagement was so that the Israelis have
purposedly set-up a trap: they have sent Phantoms to hit that Egyptian radar
station and act as a demonstration group, knowing that any attack in _that_
area would cause the Soviets to react - not Egyptians. The purpose was to
deliver a message to the Soviets: don't play with us. When the Soviets
reacted as expected, additional groups of Israeli Mirages and Phantoms - all
flown by hand-picked pilots, every single one of which had far more fresh
combat experience than all the Soviets together - hit them from the side.

So, the Soviets fell to their own ignorance as much as they did to missiles
fired from their fighters: they considered themselves "better" than the
Israelis because of what they were at hom ("best" Soviet pilots), not
because of their true combat experience (which was 0). Also because they
would not listen to the "stupid Arabs", which were warning them that new air
combat methods and weapons were needed in order the counter the Israelis.
The Soviets believed they did not need anything better than MiG-21s and
their nifty weaponry. Israelis, on the other side, concentrated all of their
best pilots to deliver the message: these were excellently trained in
air-to-air gunnery, and also knew the MiG-21 and the weaknesses of its
weapons system so well, they could exploit this in combat to their
advantage.

The Israelis knew, for example, that the R-13 - (AA-2 "Atoll", the main
air-to-air missile used by the MiG-21) - was completely useless in air
combat, so they could maneuver and use afterburners without the fear of
being hit, while their own missiles were functioning. They were, however,
neither "super" nor the "best": they were only better than the Soviets and
the Egyptians at the time and place. Of course, that was what counted and
what was important at the time and place.

As a matter of fact several of "best" Israeli "aces" are known for poor
section discipline: they were fighting alone, leaving their wingmen alone
and without support (which caused quite some losses in air combats in 1973,
when the Arabs got better).

That requires geting in close and out flying the
enemy planes and the pilots. Israel due to this found ways to reload the
Gpods of their planes much faster than any other nation had.

Hm, somehow I have a feeling you're missing here too. Guns were important
mainly during the Six Day War. Subsequently, an increasing number of kills
were scored by missiles.
If I recall it exactly all the Israeli kills against Soviets on 30 July 1970
were scored by missiles, just for example....

The US sent
their ground crew instructors to study how Iseal in Yom Kippur war put US
planes refuled and reloaded back in the air in 15 minutes when the US
ground
crews needed an hour.

The turn-around times were more important on the first day of the Six Day
War, in 1967, than in 1970 or 1973: on the first day of the Six Day War the
Israelis had to fly as much in order to keep the enemy under the constant
pressure. The situation changed already on the next day, when the threat
from Arab air forces was minimized. On specific days during the October War,
1973, the IDF/AF flew not more than 150-200 sorties, while having something
like 400 combat aircraft at the time. Means, obviously less than 50% of the
force was flying at all. So, I doubt there was a need for the US to send
anybody to Israel in 1973 to see these Israeli super-turbo turn-around
times...

In fact, in 1973 the Israelis had nothing like turn-around times of 15
minutes: this was neither really needed, nor advisible, and in the cases
where it was attempted the results were heavy losses. The first reason was
that the pilots could not be properly briefed for such operations as fought
in 1973: as after such fast turn-around times the pilots were sent to hit
targets they did not know where to find they got shot down while looking
around... On the first day of the Six Day War, the situation was simplier,
as they had to strike mainly Arab airfields.

Also, in 1973 the IDF/AF was flying Phantoms: a single Phantom can carry as
many bombs as four or more Mirages - and deliver them with far better
precision, over a longer range, at a higher speed. A "salvo" of 12 Mk.82s
dropped from a single F-4E in 1973 could shut down an Arab airfield for
several hours: in 1973 one needed at least four Mirages, or SMB.2s, or
Vautors to do the same job. Consequently they did not need fly as many
sorties as in 1967.

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.

Hehe, I doubt anybody working in any air force could agree with this....

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.

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.

Now you indicate they outclassed the Soviets who would have sent their
best
in not their worst.

This is nothing special: the fact that the Soviets considered their "best"
pilots "best" means not these were indeed the "best" around. They've got
shot down in air combats fought on a number of other places too... You can
bet your annual income that the same can be said for the Israelis too: some
of their "best" were shot down several times. So also the "best" Arab pilot
ever, Syrian Bassam Hamshu, who shot down nine Israelis in air combats
between 1970 and 1973 - and then got himself shot down and killed in 1982:
there is always somebody who's _better_.....

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

"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?



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


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.

From:
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/03....Article-1.html

--
On Saturday, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said his country was
determined to continue to strengthen its armed forces, regardless of
international concerns.

"A strong Iran is a backing for the security of friends, neighbors and
all the regional countries," Khatami said during a Defense Ministry
exhibition in Teheran.

He condemned "the Zionist regime, which is equipped with atomic,
biological and chemical weapons," as "the principal threat to the
nations of the region."

Jay Bushinsky adds:

Responding to Khatami's remarks, the Foreign Ministry said yesterday
it does not perceive Iran as an enemy and does not threaten the
Iranian regime.
--


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


I'm also posting an article from Iranscope:

http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/2...16/index.shtml


Thursday, September 04, 2003

IRI Intimidating Israel

September 04, 2003
Iranscope
Sam Ghandchi



Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) since its inception has been
intimidating Israel, beginning with Khomeini's announcement of the
Ghods Day in Tehran after the establishment of IRI, supposedly to
defend the Palestinian people, but in reality to export Shi'a Islamism
all over the Middle East. In the recent years, IRI boasting of having
long range missiles reaching Israel, is doing the same kind of
rhetoric Saddam initiated against Israel, that ended up in Israel's
preemptive strikes on Iraq's nuclear facilities.

The IRI anti-Israeli intimidations is also reminiscent of rhetoric of
IRI leaders against Iraq which ended up in Iraq's invasion of Iran
with 8 years of suffering and devastation with no positive outcome for
Iran. Of course Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran and it was rightly
condemned and Iranians had every right and duty to resist the invaders
and push them out of Iran.

Why is IRI doing all the rhetoric of Shahab Missiles to get Iran into
a war situation with Israel? Haven't we learned that these
intimidations can only hurt Iran and Iranians by isolating Iran more
and more and putting Iran at the risk of an Israeli attack?

What is all the point of anti-Israeli nonsense? In the last 20 years,
Iran has suffered in the hands of Islamists and not Zionists. Why do
the Islamists and leftists always try to make Israeli-Palestinian
conflict our issue? IRI tries to start a war with Israel to keep
itself afloat, the same way Saddam and many Arab states including most
of the Palestinian leadership have done all these years, to keep the
tension with Israel to justify their own incompetence to form
democratic and modern states in their own countries.

Can anybody name one state in the Middle East to be more modern and
democratic for its *own* citizens than Israel? Oh please do not jump
and say Palestinians are treated as second degree citizens in Israel.
I know that and I condemn it. But blacks were treated as second degree
citizens in law of the land not only till 1864 but even till the Civil
Rights Movement in the U.S., but the United State was still a
democracy for the rest of the population for hundreds of years despite
the ugly part of apartheid during that history.

Let's remember that in contrast, the Arab countries do not just treat
their "second" degree citizens below democratic and human rights
standards, they treat all their citizens as such, and also they are
all backward states which even allow the killing of heretics, or
practice beheading and other cruel punishments like in Saudi Arabia,
and stoning and other crimes against Iran's own citizens in the case
of IRI even sanctioned in its constitution, whereas all these
countries having oil are a lot richer than Israel and could have
modernized and democratized a lot if they had the right leadership.

Israel has been one of the most successful countries in the Middle
East, which has been able to become way more modern and democratic
than all the other countries in the Middle East even without having
oil revenues. The superiority of the state apparatus of Israel in the
independence of its parliament and checks and balances, having real
elections and not sham elections, and the social welfare and
independent media and other human rights, are undeniable and their
advanced state in technologies and health care are known even to
Iranian people who wish medical attendance in Israeli hospitals for
their loved ones, and if anybody says it is all because of dependence
on the U.S., I would respond that Saudi has also been dependent on the
U.S. but is a symbol of backwardness in the world and not advancement.

I have written before that "I do not approve the attacks of Israeli
state against the Palestinians and if some Israel's officials still
imagine they have legitimacy of owning a piece of land in the Middle
East based on whatever has been the case some thousands of years ago
are wrong and the same way the Palestinians and Arabs who also imagine
that because of whatever has been owned by Arabs over half a century
ago to have the right to that land, are also dreaming. This is as if
one keeps saying white population has no right to the U.S. land,
because it belonged to Native Americans. The reality is that there is
a country of Israel because of whatever historical reasons, just like
all those Arab countries that exist because of some historical reasons
and one better see the reality and plan on that rather than having a
self-serving version of dream of history to try to solve today's
problems."

Thus basically I do not care for either side of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and I have already written in details my
views of the historical issues raised, and do not need to repeat here
and frankly I see it waste of time to argue these historical
discussions and I prefer to focus on practical reality of the Middle
East than to get drowned in history.

Iranians want good relations with Israel and it is to our advantage to
learn about technical and social advancements of Israel and looking at
Israel from the angle of Israel-Palestinian conflict has been a wrong
approach to Israel for over 20 years. The majority of leftists who
have been helping IRI all these years in continuing their lopsided
view of Israel are doing a disservice to Iran and Iranians and if
their so-called anti-imperialism ended up supporting an Islamist
reactionary revolution in 1979, their condoning and supporting
anti-Israeli rhetoric of IRI will put Iran at a situation worse than
the Iran-Iraq War.

Iranians do not want a war with Israel and if IRI leaders cause a war
with Israel, they are the ones who are causing another disaster for
Iran and Iranians, which can hurt us like the Iran-Iraq War, and
Islamists and leftists should answer for all the devastations that
will follow such an outcome. They better come to grips with the new
realities of the Middle East rather than putting Iran and Iranians at
risk



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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:03:05 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

I gave up & went with Brassey's instead. Much more information, and
much less pretence.

Yes, but what's the price for Brassey's like in the US?

On 17 Sep 2003 21:07:15 -0700, robert arndt wrote:
(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 because
I believe Tehran should be destroyed in the event of an attack against
the State of Israel with IRBMs

You believe it should be destroyed "by now". Now, perhaps I am
ignorant of current developments in the middle east, but to my
knowledge Iran hasn't launched IRBMs at Israel, so you believe it
deosn't be destoryed irrespective of this. The fact is, you are
someone who gloats at the imagined death of millions of people. The
only difference between you and Hitler is that he was powerful
enough to make his fantasies reality.

(which for all we know in the future
might mount an Iranian-made or DPRK/FSU purchased nuclear warhead)...

Indeed.

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

Just like you say nothing of Israel's blatant oppression of millions
of Palestinians?

it's intense historical hatred of the Jews (including support
for the Nazi holocaust of WW2), and the fact that it is actively
seeking to develop nuclear weapons with the SOLE purpose of being
directed against Israel.

AFAICT, the main purpose is to deter American aggression. It's
highly unlikely a nuclear-armed Iran would use nuclear weapons
against Israel, for the same reason that no nuclear weapon state
has ever used nuclear weapons against another nuclear weapon state.
One thing the leaders of all countries have in common is they don't
want to become radioactive cinders.

Who's the fascist then?

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at -- you seem to be saying
that if the Iranian govmt are fascists, you can't be. Is that what
you are saying? If not, what are you saying?

It's quite obvious that there is no shortage of people with nasty beliefs
and attitudes on either side of the disputer between Israel and the Arab/
Muslim world; but it's equally obvious that this has no bearing on whether
you, personally, are a fascist.

The US should have dealt with Tehran during
the hostage crisis, and I'm not referring to "Operation Eagle Claw"
either.

What are you refering to, then?

Instead, we elected President Reagan and let Iraq fight a 8 yr
war with them. The US has tried repeatedly to win over the
pro-democracy elements in Iranian society

By deposing Mossadeq?

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

I disagree, for reasons I've explained earlier.

I don't blame Israel at all for it's tough stance and threats
to pre-emptive attack/sabotage their efforts.

As I understand it, you are saying that the Israeli _Herrenvolk_ are
superior to the Arab and Muslim _Untermensch_, so have a natural right
to kill them, and displace them off their land to create _Lebensraum_.
That's what you seem to beleive -- tell me if I'm wrong, but your belief system is indistinguishable from Hitler's, if you just change a few
labels.

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...

If I could be bothered to re-read _Mein Kampf_ I'm sure I could come
up with similar phrases.

Face it, you're a fascist.

--
A: top posting

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:01:08 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

"robert arndt" wrote in message
. com...
(phil hunt) wrote in message
m...
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?

When I talked about him growing a toothbrush mustache.

--
A: top posting

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

"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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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
I may say I stand corrected on one thing though, I assumed that the
discussion was about the war time '67 and the War on Yom Kippur. If
these IAF pilots shot down Soviet Piloted Migs they were better
pilots as the Israelis fight most of their air to air battles with
cannon fire not air
to
air heat seeking rockets.

Actually, the situation in that engagement was so that the Israelis
have purposedly set-up a trap: they have sent Phantoms to hit that
Egyptian radar station and act as a demonstration group, knowing that
any attack in _that_ area would cause the Soviets to react - not
Egyptians. The purpose was to deliver a message to the Soviets: don't
play with us. When the Soviets reacted as expected, additional groups
of Israeli Mirages and Phantoms - all flown by hand-picked pilots,
every single one of which had far more fresh combat experience than
all the Soviets together - hit them from the side.

So, the Soviets fell to their own ignorance as much as they did to
missiles fired from their fighters: they considered themselves
"better" than the Israelis because of what they were at hom ("best"
Soviet pilots), not because of their true combat experience (which
was 0). Also because they would not listen to the "stupid Arabs",
which were warning them that new air combat methods and weapons were
needed in order the counter the Israelis. The Soviets believed they
did not need anything better than MiG-21s and their nifty weaponry.
Israelis, on the other side, concentrated all of their best pilots to
deliver the message: these were excellently trained in air-to-air
gunnery, and also knew the MiG-21 and the weaknesses of its weapons
system so well, they could exploit this in combat to their advantage.

The Israelis knew, for example, that the R-13 - (AA-2 "Atoll", the
main air-to-air missile used by the MiG-21) - was completely useless
in air combat, so they could maneuver and use afterburners without
the fear of being hit, while their own missiles were functioning.
They were, however, neither "super" nor the "best": they were only
better than the Soviets and the Egyptians at the time and place. Of
course, that was what counted and what was important at the time and
place.

As a matter of fact several of "best" Israeli "aces" are known for
poor section discipline: they were fighting alone, leaving their
wingmen alone and without support (which caused quite some losses in
air combats in 1973, when the Arabs got better).

That requires geting in close and out flying the
enemy planes and the pilots. Israel due to this found ways to
reload the Gpods of their planes much faster than any other nation
had.

Hm, somehow I have a feeling you're missing here too. Guns were
important mainly during the Six Day War. Subsequently, an increasing
number of kills were scored by missiles.
If I recall it exactly all the Israeli kills against Soviets on 30
July 1970 were scored by missiles, just for example....

The US sent
their ground crew instructors to study how Iseal in Yom Kippur war
put US planes refuled and reloaded back in the air in 15 minutes
when the US
ground
crews needed an hour.

The turn-around times were more important on the first day of the Six
Day War, in 1967, than in 1970 or 1973: on the first day of the Six
Day War the Israelis had to fly as much in order to keep the enemy
under the constant pressure. The situation changed already on the
next day, when the threat from Arab air forces was minimized. On
specific days during the October War, 1973, the IDF/AF flew not more
than 150-200 sorties, while having something like 400 combat aircraft
at the time. Means, obviously less than 50% of the force was flying
at all. So, I doubt there was a need for the US to send anybody to
Israel in 1973 to see these Israeli super-turbo turn-around times...

In fact, in 1973 the Israelis had nothing like turn-around times of 15
minutes: this was neither really needed, nor advisible, and in the
cases where it was attempted the results were heavy losses. The first
reason was that the pilots could not be properly briefed for such
operations as fought in 1973: as after such fast turn-around times
the pilots were sent to hit targets they did not know where to find
they got shot down while looking around... On the first day of the
Six Day War, the situation was simplier, as they had to strike mainly
Arab airfields.

Also, in 1973 the IDF/AF was flying Phantoms: a single Phantom can
carry as many bombs as four or more Mirages - and deliver them with
far better precision, over a longer range, at a higher speed. A
"salvo" of 12 Mk.82s dropped from a single F-4E in 1973 could shut
down an Arab airfield for several hours: in 1973 one needed at least
four Mirages, or SMB.2s, or Vautors to do the same job. Consequently
they did not need fly as many sorties as in 1967.

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. 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. In the Six day war after the first day against Egypt, many of the
sorties were flown against the Syrian and Israeli Air Forces to stop the
danger of the air raids that the Jordanians did pull off in the early hours
of the war. Shooting down most of their best pilots supressed them to
defense only. The Syrians lost too many planes also in one day engagement.
By the third day no arab air force threatened Israel or its forces. They
were a nullified threat. 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. 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. Israel did continue to use the
fast refiting time during that time. They were handed known fixed locations
to hit, and then any target of opurtunity as well as those strikes that the
ground troops called in.

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. 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.

Briefing time is not needed for those missions, just pilots that are rested
and planes loaded with the ordinence and fuel. How long does it take for a
tired pilot to get out of his plane and his rested replacement get in. Not
two hours, not one hour, but perhaps about 15 minutes of them climbing and
talking about the plane's handling. So a 15 minute turn around is a good
and better way to go. The other 50 planes were incase another nation joined
in the fray and they needed to scramble their planes in defense.


Hehe, I doubt anybody working in any air force could agree with
this....

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.


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. Many of these raides went very quickly just take out the air fields
some key roadways and rail line. Also they were the ones that bombed some
Russian Ships in Port Alexandria sending them packing that day. That was
their fifth sortee. 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".


Now you indicate they outclassed the Soviets who would have sent
their
best
in not their worst.

This is nothing special: the fact that the Soviets considered their
"best" pilots "best" means not these were indeed the "best" around.
They've got shot down in air combats fought on a number of other
places too... You can bet your annual income that the same can be
said for the Israelis too: some of their "best" were shot down
several times. So also the "best" Arab pilot ever, Syrian Bassam
Hamshu, who shot down nine Israelis in air combats between 1970 and
1973 - and then got himself shot down and killed in 1982: there is
always somebody who's _better_.....

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



--�
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 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.


--�
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/