HAWX acePortugal also used for air policing, if I recall correctly. But this is not very demanding task, any plane could do that.
HAWX acehawk ace please show sole reluctance and respect!!!!!!
Really? :rolleyes:And how did you reach the conclusion I don’t show respect? Did I say anything bad? This whole discussion is largely hypothetical since the begining anyway.
HAWX aceStrange.. i just heard on the news here that the F-4 are located at 1000m depth.
And that the two pilots are located on 50 meters depth:confused:Edit: at 50 meters on the sea bed!
I think this means they did eject and was found strapped on their seats..
Just my two cent.
If that’s what you heard, then that’s new data, from the article above it makes more sense that they did not, since it would be a little odd to locate two bodies seperately in such short notice, unless they had some sort of beacon with them.
HAWX aceAccording to this, the bodies of the two pilots were found by the deep sea submersible, appearently they did not eject:
HAWX aceTill the 80s most MANPADS were limited to tail-chase engagements only, what changed from the Stinger and later Strelas which allowed head-on engagements. In an army that were operated like all the other AD-assets to protect a given object or area. The USMC is a good example how most of the AD-work is done by the Stinger and how it is operated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Stinger_Battery
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/44-18/Ch3.htm
Here is the example how MANPADs were operated in a regular army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Maximum target speed approaching is up to 320 m/sec under optimum conditions or up to 622 kt at s.l.
When the 600kt is ~310 m/sec.
That’s nice, but how does that constitute an answer to my post? I think you are answering to a different thing rather than what I posted.
To make it easier for you, forget low tech outdated MANPADS. Think of short range advanced radar guided SAMs. My argument applies equally. There have been recorded incidents during excersises that users of multiple VELOS batteries suffered heavy defeat by A-7s, even though they were aware of the excersise scenario and knew where to expect them and at what time. Now imagine what would happen with a less capable, less sophisticated MANPADS, even latest generation.
When you are on the ground, with limited time window and your opponent has the element of surprise, scoring an antiaircraft hit is pure luck. Your missile’s manufacturer’s exceptional abilities brochure won’t save you.
HAWX aceAt that time-scale it was an issue. To survive manpads and SAMs in a single pass mission even you have to stay as close as possible to 600 kt. Every turn or jinxing eats into that desired speed in a noticeable way.
That’s in theory. In reality, for a MANPADS user to get an A-7 flying low, he has to know beforehand where the A-7 will come from, the exact time when it will come, and the direction it will follow. Even then, there is still no guarantee of a successfull hit for the poor fella.
HAWX aceThese three planes entered service around the same time and filled similar roles, and are still being flown today (although Greece may have retired theirs or will soon).
You need to take into account that not all version of these planes were the same, as such there are many differences in performance even when the same type is compared. For exampled A-7H (=Hellas) which we bought in the seventies where state of the art at the time, virtually uninderceptable when flown properly. Still they were vastly inferior when compared with US Navy’s A-7Es which we were donated as a gift for our participation in the first Gulf War.
What are the advantages each plane had over the other, beginning with the first five years of service and how upgrades have proceeded over time.
The A-7 is very usefull for us not only as an excellent bomber, but as an air tanker as well, being able to refuel M2K-5s, dramatically extending their SCALP-EG reach.
Where the other two ever certified to this role? I don’t know.
HAWX acePetros, get your facts straight, Turkish side NEVER denied breaching Syrian airspace.
True, even president Gul himself admitted violations of foreign countries air space being common practice for THK.
What Turkish side did deny, was the intentions. Basically they claim the flight being unarmed, friendly, ordinary routine, no harm meant, training, peaceful, testing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The problem is that it’s Turkey that makes these claims, not Mahatma Ghandhi, nor Mother Teresa.
HAWX aceGreece cannot go into war.
-They have no modern ammo for the tanks
-They have still no factory level repair overhaul facility for the F16s
-Most of F16 still doesnt have EW; which means in BVR they will sitting ducks
-Greece still lacks most of modern command-control infrastructre. Even their navy (which is full of cold war era warships) has no modern SATCOM capability, they depend only commercial satellites.
-Their submarines torpedo is 40 years old
-Their Fast Attack craft lack of over the horizone attack capability (except 5 of them)
-Their infantry poorly equipped, lack of enough training, they still mostly rely on 50 year old un-modernised M113s which cannot stop modern 7.62×51 AP rounds.
-Greece in economic trouble, they dont have enoug spare parts, avalibilty of older Mirage and A7 is probably comparable to Syrian Mig21s
-Their pilots lack of necceary skills, HAF has mid-air colllision record in Europe!
-Greek navy and coast guard humilated by human and drug trafficers everday, they have no control over their border.bla bla…
Your information is heavily outdated, you urgently need to renew your sources to avoid looking like a fool, for example, we do have tank ammo, deliveries from US and dutch surplus concluded last month. Other than that your post is so cute. :rolleyes:
In other news…
Saudis forces mass on Jordanian, Iraqi borders. Turkey, Syria reinforce strength
(not sure about accuracy, can’t cross check yet.)
They are true about the Turkish part though, Turkey indeed has moved some forces. These are yesterday’s photos:
http://ptisidiastima.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/trm-s1-copy.jpg
http://ptisidiastima.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/trs-m2-copy.jpg
http://ptisidiastima.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/atilgan-syria/
HAWX aceI know, but I can’t find one in English or with english subs.
What it says is a description of daily overpasses of the Greek island of Farmakonisi by turkish jets simulating bombing maneuvers.
HAWX aceSwerve, just a quick question. Forget Syria. Let’s say the same incident happens in the aegean. Turkish RF-4 gets shot down. Greek side claims it was shot with AA gun, by some overzealous soldier, 1 Km from a Greek island and produces a map similar to the Syrian one. Turkish side claims it was shot down 7nm from the same island (with the relative map as well) by Greek air defense. More or less the same incident, with more or less the same claims from both sides.
What side do you believe and why? Who was the attacker in your opinion?
The scenario is hardly hypothetical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YqETZ_WJX0
There is a de facto state of war in the Aegean, and yet, there are some who get surprised when they hear that Greece would not run to help Turkey if more of its RF-4s are shot down over Syria. And when you tell them what’s going on they run to the default fairy tale “doh! you are Greek, what can you possibly know”? :rolleyes:
HAWX aceNonsense!
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once, in 2001. It was not invoked with reference to Iraq, but Afghanistan.
That is why most of NATO was happy to help with the invasion of Afghanistan (i.e. where the attack on the USA on 11-09-2001 was planned from, & where the head of the organisation which perpetrated it was living), but many member countries refused to help in Iraq. No attempt was made to persuade them by invoking Article 5, because of a lack of evidence linking Iraq to 9/11.
The claimed reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with UN resolutions re weapons of mass destruction, particularly the supposed resumption of his nuclear weapons programme. Links to Al Qaeda & 9/11 were mentioned in propaganda, but only idiots took them seriously. Many of the supporters of the invasion I knew found those claims a little embarrassing.
Well, mr Bush and his diplomatic team didn’t thought it as nonsense, so whatever you think is irrelevant.
You are clearly confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. As I said, someone said “Turkey”, & your critical faculties cut out.
Well then, it seems it’s a convenient answer whenever you demonstrate some regional ignorance (even regarding the most fundamental subjects). The other guy is Greek, so he HAS TO has his critical faculties cut out. I have proved you wrong at least three times so far (even leaving Iraq out) and yet your argument’s philosophy is just “he’s Greek, so he is just pre-occupied.”
Like I said, whatever suits you.
HAWX aceI don’t think that’s official Greek government policy is it?:rolleyes:
If you stick to official government policy, we are best friends with Turkey, we strongly support their EU candidateship, we work for global peace and world friendship etc, etc, etc. Basically you can visit http://www.mfa.gr/en/foreign-policy/ and learn about official policies.
But here it’s not really the point and it doesn’t really matter, does it? Otherwise we could all post a few official policy links and that’s about it, end of conversation.
HAWX aceWhat? Are you joking?
You’re putting an entirely voluntary war of choice, an attack on a country outside the NATO area, justified by false conclusions drawn from extremely weak evidence, on the same level as acting in accordance with treaty obligations to defend a NATO ally against a (hypothetical) attack.
You need to check your sources. The invasion of Iraq, was part og G.W. Bush’s war on terror, caused by a direct attack on NATO soil, on 9/11/2001, which caused the invocation of NATO’s article 5. In fact, president Bush directly stated that “those who are not with us are against us”.
But if you prefer to claim otherwise so that your argument doesn’t collapse with too much noise, it’s your choice.
You’re demonstrating, yet again, how logic, reason & wisdom are short-circuited in the minds of Greeks whenever they hear the word “Turkey”.
Like I told you last time, you are 100% entitled to your opinion. If that’s what you want to believe, go ahead.
As for allies – are you serious? You’d seriously consider aligning yourselves with a vicious hereditary dictator, whose power is based on his clan & sect, & whose rule is currently weakening because when faced with calls for a little bit of democracy he resorted to murderous repression? 12000 people have died in the last few months because the Assad clan decided that they’d rather kill as many as it took than accept any loosening of their hold – which, BTW, they got & have held by murder. You think these are people it’s good, or even safe, to associate with?
Apart from the moral reasons for not aligning oneself with the Assads (who are not Syria), think of the practical reasons. What can they offer you? They’re poor, & if, in some hypothetical confrontation between Greece & Turkey they attack Turkey, the Turks can invoke the NATO treaty. BTW, that treaty protects you against Turkey. Don’t attack Turkey, & the rest of the alliance is obligated to defend you if Turkey attacks you – as the Turks know. Bring in the loathsome Assads as allies, & you put yourself in the wrong, & forfeit that aid. It’s too stupid to even contemplate.
Bla-bla-bla…. and again bla-bla-bla… I put historic facts on the table, you put wishful theories. No problem, whatever suits you.
What can they offer you?
Ignorance of regional history and geopolitics can be an excuse though not indefinitely. They can offer us the exact same thing Albanians can (and do) offer Turkey. Or, what they offered us in 1987 and nobody else in the western world did, including, in fact especially USA, UK, Germany et al.
BTW, that treaty protects you against Turkey.
But ignorance on reality cannot be an excuse. No dear friend, the treaty does not protect us against Turkey, never has. There so many historic instances to prove it that I won’t even bother.
HAWX aceEven the Russians are starting to accept that the world will be a better place without the Assad regime (according to the BBC this morning).
So it’s probably the exact opposite.
Sign In
