dark light

TEEJ

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,036 through 1,050 (of 2,134 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #321952
    TEEJ
    Participant

    That was highlighted in the programme with interviews with some members of US Special Forces. The US and UK teams were hampered by the actions of the Northern Alliance forces. The Northern Alliance were unwilling to follow the orders of the Special Forces teams in the later stages of the Tora Bora operation. That frustration and break down of relations led to a tense stand-off between the Northern Alliance and Coalition Special Forces. Without the assistance of the Afghans the plan of pursuit couldn’t be put into force and Bin Laden was able to slip over the border.

    TJ

    in reply to: ISI keeping Osama's whereabouts a secret: Expert #1903813
    TEEJ
    Participant

    That was highlighted in the programme with interviews with some members of US Special Forces. The US and UK teams were hampered by the actions of the Northern Alliance forces. The Northern Alliance were unwilling to follow the orders of the Special Forces teams in the later stages of the Tora Bora operation. That frustration and break down of relations led to a tense stand-off between the Northern Alliance and Coalition Special Forces. Without the assistance of the Afghans the plan of pursuit couldn’t be put into force and Bin Laden was able to slip over the border.

    TJ

    in reply to: Tenders called for F-111G destruction #2429310
    TEEJ
    Participant

    F-111Gs were former Strategic Air Command FB-111As assigned the role of destroying Warsaw Pact command bunkers in Eastern Europe with AGM-69s. B-58s, B-36s and B-47s aren’t on the treaty list either because they too were deactivated prior to the date of the treaty.

    I should have specifically referred to the SALT II Treaty. The SALT II treaty was signed when the FB-111 was in service. It was agreed by both sides that the FB-111 would not be treaty covered. The same agreement was reached with the Tu-22Ms. Both types were in service when SALT II was signed in 1979. Neither type met the criteria of heavy strategic bombers and thus did not come under any treaty dealing with strategic arms.

    http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/salt2-2.html

    ‘3. Heavy bombers are considered to be:

    (a) currently, for the United States of America, bombers of the B-52 and B-1 types, and for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, bombers of the Tupolev-95 and Myasishchev types;

    (b) in the future, types of bombers which can carry out the mission of a heavy bomber in a manner similar or superior to that of bombers listed in subparagraph (a) above;

    (c) types of bombers equipped for cruise missiles capable of a range in excess of 600 kilometers; and

    (d) types of bombers equipped for ASBMs.’

    The subsequent treaty (START) agreement continued with the omission of medium range bombers even though they were nuclear capable. START added the B-2 and Tu-160. Types such as the FB-111 and Tu-22M were negotiated out during the mid-70s. The only treaty that the F-111 and Tu-22M types are covered by is the CFE Treaty.

    TJ

    in reply to: Tenders called for F-111G destruction #2429352
    TEEJ
    Participant

    Have to scrap them. They escaped destruction under Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty because Oz doesn’t have nukes. Once Oz retiires them, the Russians can claim they are still nuke-capable bombers beyond what is allowed by the treaty.

    Tired old airplanes deserve to be resurrected in a new life as beer cans.

    The F-111s, of any variant, did not come under START/SORT. The agreement was for heavy strategic nuclear capable bombers.

    For the US it was the B-52G/H, B-2 and B-1B

    START verification of type images

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start1/text/stphotos-US.htm

    For the Russian Federation it was the Tu-95 and Tu-160.

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start1/text/stphotos.htm

    TJ

    in reply to: General Discussion #323017
    TEEJ
    Participant

    Thanks for posting, didn’t realise the third torpedo hit the destroyer! No wonder they didn’t want to stop and PU survivors.

    No problem. The Bouchard certainly had luck on her side that day. As the USS Borie she suffered considerable damage over the years.

    http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-704)

    TJ

    in reply to: 2010 Falklands Thread #1904415
    TEEJ
    Participant

    Thanks for posting, didn’t realise the third torpedo hit the destroyer! No wonder they didn’t want to stop and PU survivors.

    No problem. The Bouchard certainly had luck on her side that day. As the USS Borie she suffered considerable damage over the years.

    http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-704)

    TJ

    in reply to: General Discussion #323896
    TEEJ
    Participant
    in reply to: 2010 Falklands Thread #1904962
    TEEJ
    Participant
    in reply to: Falklands War 2010 #2430146
    TEEJ
    Participant

    Sorry gents – but I was just looking at a book which states –
    ‘Argentina continues to be a good Israeli customer, and it was reported in 1984 that IAI had begun to supply three Gabriel III/AS missiles for each A-4 Skyhawk.’

    Can anyone confirm that Argentina uses or has Gabriel ASM’s??

    Regards
    Pioneer

    See holdings on UN Arms Register. Detailed better on 2007. The most recent update is for 2008. No Gabriel.

    http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.NSF

    TJ

    in reply to: NATO Reporting Names? #2430453
    TEEJ
    Participant

    Planeman,

    The topic has been done to death over the years. Have you tried a simple search?

    ASIC search

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/search.php?searchid=2680971

    ASCC search

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/search.php?searchid=2680979

    Yes codenames are still allocated for FSU and PRC aircraft and helos by ASIC (formerly ASCC). ASIC only codenames aircraft/helos. NATO has nothing to do with any codename allocation, but are simply on the distribution list.

    http://www.dtic.mil/asic/

    The most accurate list on the web.

    http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html#_System_NATO

    TJ

    in reply to: Al Ain 2010 #461217
    TEEJ
    Participant

    Superb! You certainly did have fun, Flapjack!

    TJ

    in reply to: Role of satellites in modern air combat #2393368
    TEEJ
    Participant

    It seems this is quite a “shy” side of modern warfare…i meen everybody is talking about radars and IRST and supercruise and stealth and so forth …but how about satellites?

    The reason for this topic is that i’ve read in various magazines over the time interviews with pilots who fought in GW2 or Yugoslavia for instance …and it always puzzled me them talking about haveing 2 independent confirmations about the identity of a bogie ( as per ROE rules), one being AWACS an the other being , and i quote ” another , classified source”

    The pilots will be talking about NCTR (Non Cooperative Target Recognition)

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UECKO451kAwC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=NCTR+F-15&source=bl&ots=XQZgYHhF39&sig=Rnr4kdFE5u7-bi5l58rwdrO2jaM&hl=en&ei=cz5rS_LKL4700gSv0cTPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=NCTR%20F-15&f=false

    TJ

    in reply to: RAF Tornado GR4 Deployment #2402936
    TEEJ
    Participant

    F-35b wrote

    What’s the sandbox?

    Sandbox is just military slang for in general the ‘Middle East’. In this case the ‘sandbox’ is Afghanistan.

    TJ

    in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2406926
    TEEJ
    Participant

    15 more (9 Active and 6 ANG) installed this year (FY2010) but paid for from previous year (FY2006-07) buys. No new buys this year (FY2010). 15 total installed as of end of this year (FY2010).

    Page 195 – 198
    http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-091.pdf

    —Edit—
    The units installed this year are the first units upgraded using the procurement started in FY2006-07. 43 units have been paid for, but only 15 installed by the end of FY2010.

    Thanks Spudman. Still quite a slow refit and it appears to be at the moment US based airframes. It would be fair to say that those Lakenheath based F-15Cs wouldn’t have been fielding AESA against the Spanish Typhoons.

    TJ

    in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2407715
    TEEJ
    Participant

    In this case I presume that the F-15Cs were from Lakenheath? What is the status of the F-15C AESA program in relation to USAFE F-15Cs. Do any of them carry it?

    TJ

Viewing 15 posts - 1,036 through 1,050 (of 2,134 total)