64 Sqn, RAF Serial: SH-M (N3122)

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100714

TJ

Curlyboy & Phantom Phil,

It has been covered on several threads over the last year on keymags. No F-4 of any nation is covered by SALT or any of the strategic arms limitation treaties. The F-4 is not a strategic platform.

It continually gets dragged up and isn’t helped by being on such websites.

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/survivors.html

It is one of the common aviation myths that the RAF F-4s came under SALT. SALT and START only referred to heavy strategic nuclear bombers. The F-4s based in Europe came under the CFE Treaty (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty). The CFE Treaty covers combat aircraft not assigned to a strategic mission. For example RAF Lakenheath and their F-15s are subject to inspection under the CFE Treaty. Not even the nuclear assigned F-15E Strike Eagles nor the previously UK based F-111E/Fs come under SALT/START/SORT. Even Tu-22M Backfire come under CFE and not any of the strategic arms treaties.

See list of aircraft types covered by CFE on the following.

http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/protocols/exist_equip.htm

http://www.dod.mil/acq/acic/treaties/cfe/index.htm

See following link from 2008

‘Table 4.13 Aircraft Holdings in the UK, Germany, Cyprus & Gibraltar within the scope of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, at 1 January each year’

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2008/c4/table413.html

In 2008 the MoD declared 5 F-4s that were held on CFE declared sites.

TJ

Cheer’s for that TEEJ, it’s very much appreciated.

ps got anymore pics we’d like to see?

No problem, Lighty. A few more.

Some of the passes are high through the choke points. It is worth going for a cockpit shot.

Tornado F3 back-seater checking the map!

Hawk T1 back-seater two-handed wave. You do get a lot of passengers being carried by Hawks such as ground crew, air cadets and lucky civilians.

The USAF crews from RAF Lakenheath are great for acknowledging the photographers.

I much prefer the ‘moment in time’ type images. Here is another one of mine where the test crew of this Saudi Tornado are caught in a moment of concentration as they sweep round the bend into the next valley. You can imagine the rear-seat crew member providing inputs to the pilot.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Panavia-Tornado-IDS/1354342/L/

TJ

has anyone else got anymore humourous/interesting photo’s they could post up?

I’ve had a salute from the astrodome on a C-130 through the Mach Loop! One of the crew is waving on the flight deck.

From the same location as that Tornado I’ve had a wave from a C-130 and a ‘good look’ from the back-seater in a Typhoon.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Lockheed-Martin-C-130J/1337138/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Eurofighter-EF-2000-Typhoon/1352061/L/

Video link of Mach Loop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbHKafEaUs

Location guides and info. Well worth a trip for unique photography and viewing.

http://www.warplane.co.uk/

http://lowfly.net/

Another guide under ‘Gallery Index’ look for ‘Low Flying in Wales’

http://www.franknoort.nl/

TJ

I’m participating. Every contribution has the potential, & often the aim, to divert the debate in a particular way. The only way to refrain from influencing the debate is not to participate.

The relevance of Jordan is not its value to the USA as an ally, but what allowing Israel to shaft it would say to the rest of the world. It would be read as ‘It doesn’t matter what you do, how much you co-operate: you mean nothing to us. We’ll let Israel do whatever it wants to you, even when it’s acting directly contrary to our interests. We put Israel ahead of ourselves, let alone you.”

What you are suggesting is that the USA would behave in exactly that manner. You forget something very important about the US-Israel relationship: Israel needs the USA, but the USA does not need Israel. Support for Israel is a matter of internal US politics, not geopolitics. You are suggesting that the USA would allow Israel to spit in its face, & say “Thank you! Do it again!”, despite Israel being its client state, heavily subsidised & given massive technological aid.

I ask you again: what’s in it for the USA? What’s the US motive? Why would the USA incur the costs associated with allowing it?

Where is the evidence that the US will stop an Israeli strike? The US is going to get the blame for it anyway regardless. The number one priority for the US will be protection of its assets in the region from an Iranian backlash. There is no way that the US is going to physically challenge or stop an Israeli attack.
Do you not think that this has been planned for? As already pointed out it will provide the US with the perfect excuse to finish the job.

I agree with you that the Saudis turning a blind eye and opening up a route is simply BS. If the Israeli’s decide to strike they are going to take the path of least resistance. There is no way that they are going to attempt to drag tankers through Syria day after day. The whole operation depends on that safe tanker route into Iraqi airspace. That pathway is through Jordan using Iraq and the US knows it. The US will physically do nothing to stop an Israeli strike package.

TJ

It is amazing what is out there. Taken in Afghanistan 2008 and probably long since gone!

http://scotfot.aminus3.com/image/2008-02-27.html

Quick update. The Su-7 appears to be in a museum.

http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/World/Middle-East/Afghanistan/Kabul/OMAR_Mine_Museum.htm

Probably worth trying to contact the company to see if they can obtain any instruments/parts?

TJ

I’m not trying to stifle debate, I’m trying to keep it rational & informed, & stop it going round in circles.

For example, your claim above that the US will simply stand back. Why do you believe that? What is the US motive? Why would it be willing to take the risks associated with that? Why would the USA choose to allow it, despite the backlash you mention?

As for the peace treaty – what about the US attitude? What’s the US motive for dumping its ally in the brown stuff? What does the USA have to gain from breaking its promises to Jordan?

Note that: I’m asking questions, as I have been throughout. That is not trying to stifle debate, but the opposite.

Let the debate take its own course. You have been on Key forums long enough to realise that!

What is the US motive to stop the attack? Can you really see US forces engaging Israeli assets? The greater ally is and always will be Israel. The US might not condone the strike, but it offers the US a perfect excuse to finish the job.

TJ

The destruction of the Syrian reactor has for the most part halted Syrian nuclear efforts – they will be hard pushed to build another experimental reactor to generate plutonium and Israel has demonstrated they can destroy any such plant with impunity – IAEA has found some irregularities with their declared nuclear activities, and it is hard to see how Syria will be able to develop nuclear weapons without US or Israel secret services finding out.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/schulte_syria.pdf

It is hard to see how Israel can achieve the same level of success with Iran, they have large well developed programme at multiple sites. The only way to stop their nuclear programme is regime change -which means a full scale invasion – which would require the US..

Was it a Syrian reactor or was it Iran with North Korean assistance thinking outside the box? With the IAEA probing Iran it would make perfect sense to use Syria and attempt to hide a reactor. IMHO, they took that gamble and lost badly.

Was it just Syria that Iran had nuclear investment in? The question arises as to who is funding the North Korean reactor in Myanmar? Is Myanmar another attempt at Iran/North Korea thinking outside the box? With Iranian finance anything is possible!

‘IAEA chief says looking into Myanmar nuclear report’ (7th June 2010 report)

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-49107920100607

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-06/18/c_13356658.htm

TJ