Some quick research on the Net revealed that the IAC are still operating 7 out of the 8 Alouette III helicopters which they first took delivery in November 1963 – and probably won’t finally retire them until the IAC takes final delivery of the rest of their AW-139s
Can anyone tell me if there are any other helis as old as these, specifically turbine aircraft, in service in any other air arm around the world? The S-61 and CH-46 do spring to mind.

there are actually just 6 AIII still with the IAC i understand!taj i doubt the L159 or hawk would be bought because they still lack one of the main requirenments!speed!there is no way a hawk type aircraft could make it from casement to say over galway in time if a rogue hijacked airliner was detected and even if it did make it on time, i doubt any order to open fire would be given!the IAC are now concentrating on the heli fleet!in an cosaintoir the defence forces magazine there was a recent article detailing the new helis and eventually they hope to fly 4EC135s 8AW139s and then maybe just maybe whisper it a few EH101s!

what?when did this happen?what has the polish air force said!?and just before we continue is this a joke?

Hey SOC.yip iv got the book and i have to say it is the best publication on the fulcrum family iv read so far!it shows a few pics of eritrean fulcrums and it talks about the engagements with EtAF flankers.DPRK?korea right?the book has one pic of a fulcrum C.though some of the figures and comparisions with western fighters are a bit biased toward the fulcrum.il let you read that chapter and make your own mind up, but overall its a good book!worth the money!

does Sudan not have MiG-29SMTs and more on order?and if so how operational are the delivered fighters?are they in good condition or starting to show signs of mistretment?because if the USA went up against fully operational MiG29SMTs then they could prove to be a pickle indeed,given that they are equipped with R77 and Bars or zhuk radars(either are pretty good)!

If they limited their attacks to military targets, I for one would have no problem calling them insurgents, or even soldiers. But when they seek out shopping centers, funeral processions, or cafes to detonate suicide bombs — or when they drag innocent civilians into the street and shoot/behead/immolate them for being of the “wrong” religious sect — these actions are what make them terrorists.

going by what you said this also makes US and many allied countries terrorists also.for instance last night on the BBC documentary show panorama they were following the actions of a british commando unit fighting the taliban and they were under siege in a village in hellmand and called in artillery strikes and air strikes on “suspected” enemy positions.this was in a village which was populated and not abdanoned,regardless of weither or not taliban fighters were killed in the strikes,innocent civilians homes were being destroyed in these attacks!

im not taking sides but just saying that such actions taken in the knowledge that civilians could be involved and killed,do these actions not also qualify as “terrorist”?