On the 24th March 1999 there were also AIM-7 Sparrow used. Not sure if any other F-15Cs were carrying a mix of AIM-7 and AIM-120s, but might skew the statistics if observers are only thinking that all the missiles fired on the 24th March were AIM-120s?
Captain Mike “Dozer” Shower recounts firing Sparrow during 24th March, 1999.
By 17 miles i have an ID that this is a bad guy, and i call it out! I talk first and shot second, just what your not supposed to do.. So i call Hostile hostile Fox three! and make my first AIM-120 shot at 14 miles. I made sure the AIM-120 was active and then thumbed to and shot an AIM-7. No kidding, i’ve allways wanted to shoot an AIM-7, and that big O’ Sparrow comes off, whoosh! I’m looking down down into the lights of belgrade so i can’t see anything, but i was able to follow the missle motors for a while. I’m ramping down from 37,000ft the whole time. At about 6 miles, and just after the AMRAAM times-out, the target turns right directly into the Beam. This could have been triggered by several things. He could have gotten indication of my radar lock the AMRAAM could have exploded near but didn’t do any damage, who knows, but he does manuver into the Beam. So now he manuvering when the AIM-7 gets there, and it apparently misses also.”
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1449948&postcount=27
UK Tornado fleet to retire in 2019, says BAE
“The out-of-service date for the UK Tornado fleet has been confirmed by the MoD [Ministry of Defence] as March 2019,” BAE Systems said in its half-year results statement on 2 August.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-tornado-fleet-to-retire-in-2019-says-bae-375014/
The B-1 left Mildenhall bound for the US about an hour ago.
Digressing slightly I am sure I saw a program on TV some years ago that parts of the country was sprayed in the 50’s with chemicals as an experiment.
Some of the experiments in the UK and US.
Digressing slightly I am sure I saw a program on TV some years ago that parts of the country was sprayed in the 50’s with chemicals as an experiment.
Some of the experiments in the UK and US.
The Chemtrail nuts started it in the late 1990s. Since then it has simply become an easy money making scam. Sadly many people suffering from mental illness or just stupidly naive are sucked into it and it has spun out of control. It really is easy, easy money for some individuals who jump on the bandwagon and promote their ‘chemtrail’ books, DVDs and websites. Most of the bunk is generated from the films that they produce such as “What in the world are they spraying”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
You will find some of the real die-hard chemtrailers on the following website. It really is staggering their beliefs and the ‘evidence’ that they post.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/Geo-Engineering_and_Chemtrails.php
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
The ‘chemtrail madness’ prompted this chap to set up a website countering all the non-sense.
As highlighted before it is easy, easy money and one such person is ‘Tanker Enemy’. Simply mind-numbing the continual amount of videos produced and manipulated to suck in the gullible and naive.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tankerenemy
If you’ve been to a Duxford Airshow you have probably seen this chap? He’s now on the ‘chemtrail circuit’ in the UK flogging DVDs and hosting lectures.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FreeTruthShow
Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Now you can purchase devices to make the ‘chemtrails’ disolve. Utter madness!
The Chemtrail nuts started it in the late 1990s. Since then it has simply become an easy money making scam. Sadly many people suffering from mental illness or just stupidly naive are sucked into it and it has spun out of control. It really is easy, easy money for some individuals who jump on the bandwagon and promote their ‘chemtrail’ books, DVDs and websites. Most of the bunk is generated from the films that they produce such as “What in the world are they spraying”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
You will find some of the real die-hard chemtrailers on the following website. It really is staggering their beliefs and the ‘evidence’ that they post.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/Geo-Engineering_and_Chemtrails.php
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/
The ‘chemtrail madness’ prompted this chap to set up a website countering all the non-sense.
As highlighted before it is easy, easy money and one such person is ‘Tanker Enemy’. Simply mind-numbing the continual amount of videos produced and manipulated to suck in the gullible and naive.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tankerenemy
If you’ve been to a Duxford Airshow you have probably seen this chap? He’s now on the ‘chemtrail circuit’ in the UK flogging DVDs and hosting lectures.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FreeTruthShow
Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Now you can purchase devices to make the ‘chemtrails’ disolve. Utter madness!
In relation to RAF Tornado and AGM-65. From PPRuNe.
The OEU mounted a Maverick underneath a Tornado and got it talking on the weapons databus. That was as far as Mav on Tornado got, it was never flown.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/476834-agm-65-maverick-raf-service.html#post7016946
During May statements were reportedly released by the Turkish General Staff. This was in reference to Turkish Cypriot airspace.
Turkish warplanes have intercepted an unidentified Israeli jet violating Turkish Cypriot airspace, Turkish army said. Turkish General Staff said in a statement on Wednesday that an Israeli fighter jet violated airspace of Turkish Cyprus on Monday for five times for eight minutes in total. The statement said two Turkish F-16 fighter jets were dispatched to the Turkish Cypriot airspace to intercept the Israeli jet.
I don’t think the regulations quite stretch to that level, although some stores have on occasion refused to sell alcohol to uniformed personnel. The regulations don’t specifically mention that scenario. The supermarkets/NAAFI stores on bases when I was in didn’t stop uniformed personnel buying alcohol.
I don’t think the regulations quite stretch to that level, although some stores have on occasion refused to sell alcohol to uniformed personnel. The regulations don’t specifically mention that scenario. The supermarkets/NAAFI stores on bases when I was in didn’t stop uniformed personnel buying alcohol.
As part of Exercise Falcor 2012, two Tiger UHTs and three NH90s have been deployed to Holloman AFB, New Mexico where crews can experience flying in hot and high conditions and carry out dust landings.
http://www.acus.org/natosource/german-helicopters-participate-exercise-new-mexico
My take on it is that for aircraft to be destroyed under CFE conditions that country would have to have exceeded their allocated quota. Under the CFE treaty (2010 figures) the UK is allowed 900 combat aircraft and 356 attack helicopters. In 2010 the UK declared 417 combat aircraft and 233 attack helicopters. Anything over that ceiling would have to be destroyed as per the CFE guidelines. For example the Jaguars also came under CFE but were obviously not destroyed or disposed of by CFE methods. If the numbers had exceeded the permitted UK quota then those excess aircraft would have to have been destroyed.
In the case of the disposal of UK F-4 then their destruction or disposal would not come under the CFE Treaty. The UK F-4s will obviously come under US Foreign Military Sales and the US guidelines of keeping parts away from the Iranian smuggling networks. I would say that the UK would have to have had the final nod from the US over the F-4s disposal? A Freedom of Information Act request might be the only way of knowing the background and the details surrounding the remaining UK F-4 disposals?
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table415.php
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty) guidelines for combat aircraft destruction
Section VI consists of 4 paragraphs. This Section details the procedures for the reduction of combat aircraft at reduction sites. Section VI specifies three ways by which combat aircraft may be destroyed: destruction by severing (i.e., cutting); destruction by deformation (e.g., bending or crushing); and destruction by use as an aerial target drone. The number of combat aircraft that may be destroyed by use as a target drone is limited to 200 per State Party, but such destruction need not take place at a reduction site (e.g., it may occur at a test range).
Paragraph 1 of Section VI provides each State Party the right to choose any one of the following procedures each time it destroys combat aircraft at reduction sites. The purpose of this provision is to make clear that a State Party is free to pick from the entire menu of destruction options each and every time it elects to destroy a combat aircraft.
Paragraph 2 of Section VI lists the procedures for destruction by severing, as follows:
The fuselage of the aircraft shall be divided into three parts not on assembly joints by severing its nose immediately forward of the cockpit and its tail in the central wing section area so that assembly joints, if there are any in the areas to be severed, shall be contained in the severed portions.
Paragraph 3 of Section VI lists the procedures for destruction by deformation, as follows:
The fuselage shall be deformed throughout by compression, so that its height, width or length is reduced by at least 30 percent.
Paragraph 4 of Section VI lists the procedures for destruction by use as target drones, as follows:
(A) each State Party shall have the right to reduce by use as target drones no more than 200 combat aircraft during the 40-month reduction period;
(B) the target drone shall be destroyed in flight by munitions fired by the armed forces of the State Party owning the target-drone;(C) if the attempt to shoot down the target drone fails and it is subsequently destroyed by a self-destruct mechanism, the procedures of this paragraph shall continue to apply. Otherwise the target drone may be recovered or may be claimed destroyed by accident in accordance with Section IX of the Protocol, depending on the circumstances; and
(D) notification of destruction shall be made to all other States Parties. Such notification shall include the type of the destroyed target drone and the location where it was destroyed. Within 90 days of the notification, the State Party claiming such reduction shall send documentary evidence, such as a report of the investigation, to all other States Parties. In the event of ambiguities relating to the destruction of a particular target drone, reduction shall not be considered complete until final resolution of the matter.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/cfe/text/artbyart/art7.htm
See also sections X and XII for procedures for reduction for static display and ground instructional purposes.
And another thing if Iran/Iraq/Greece/Turkey or allah knows where put up an F4 how close do you think it would get to a current US of A aircraft to do any damage?????
Answer NOWHERE.
Never say never. It makes perfect sense for the US to deny and thwart any attempt at Iran from procuring spare parts. Case in point being that the US had a fit over how the Germans disposed of some of their F-4s and sold off the parts for scrap. Some substantial pieces of airframe ended up on auction sites and were shipped out of the country. The rumour was that Iran used some of the Luftwaffe F-4 airframes to re-build F-4s that had accident/combat damage and return them to service.
The US has had far too many court cases of smuggled US aircraft and missile parts involving Iran for them not to react. Why give the Iranians any options to obtain parts for their US fleet of aircraft? If things go pear-shaped in the Gulf then the Iranians are likely to lash out with asymmetric warfare and swarm attacks on Coalition shipping. No Coalition asset deployed can be 100% sure that all attacks can be defended against or repelled. The Iranians have integrated their Chinese anti-ship missiles on F-4s so why not attempt to close down all means by where the Iranians can get their hands on US military aircraft parts? Take into consideration that if it all goes pear-shaped then that Coalition asset attacked or overwhelmed is a Royal Navy vessel?
IRIAF F-4 displayed with Chinese C-802 (Iranian Noor).

I always thought that the ruling came from the MOD , that servicemen should not be served in uniform , all servicemen are told this , booze in civvies only , and most breweries follow this up in staff /manager training ,
You are correct on the ruling and it doesn’t matter if alcohol is involved. The same happened during 2009 after a military funeral and got blown out of all proprotion. The MoD regulations are clear on wearing uniform in public and in regards to licensed premises.
I agree it is a contentious issue. I’ve been to several military funerals whilst serving and as a group we didn’t push our luck in licensed premises whilst in uniform. Regardless of the occasion wearing uniform in bars or public houses is not permitted. Unfortunately there is no exemptions except where the chain of command is involved and permission is granted by the licence owner.
The incident during 2009 and this one could have been avoided with a bit of pre-planning by the Chain of Command or by the senior rank in the group. I re-emphasis that it is difficult situation and especially involving military funerals but why put the owners of licensed premises under such pressure?
Army’s Briefing Note ABN 31/08 clearly states:
c. Occasions on which uniform is not to be worn, unless specifically approved by the Chain of Command:
(1) When visiting public houses.
RAF regs
0113.
Occasion on which uniform is not to be worn.
b. Visits to licensed premises (including when not consuming alcohol), except when specifically approved by the Chain of Command.’