TEEJI originally saved the report years ago from the Diego Zampini database (no longer available online). The original source is suppose to be the Sy-AF and Soviet instructors who were there at the time.
I’m pretty sure it’s listed on the Acig.org database (I’ll have to check).
There’s a description of the same incident in Russian (has a few more details) here:
http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig25isr/mig25isr.html
——————–
I agree.
It’s part of the psychological warfare with the aim of demoralising your opponent and giving an air of invincibility to your side.
Good grief man. Diego Zampini! That is like quoting Venik. Do a search for Diego Zampini on here and other forums for his beliefs during Allied Force. He took completely at face value all the tales invented during the campaign. His website was full of tales of Yugoslav MiG-29s air-to-air kills based on those fantastic tales.
The stories such as the F-15 claim were generated from the likes of Russian and Ukrainian magazines. They take on a life of their own. Remember Floggers claims (changed to user name MiG-23) that the Tornado losses during 1991 were actually down to Iraqi air-to-air kills?
TJ
TEEJwith due respect, yes i read the old thread, but once again decembers issue page 7 says “is” destined for india .what do they know to make a comment like that! if we wait for it to come out in the wash , it may be too late to even voice an opinion. next months may say “shes gone” then what?
thanks debbie.
See post 41 on the following
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/390733-bbmf-giving-hurricane-lf363-india-3.html
TJ
TEEJSo the U-2 was really an F-104…
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Norway—Air/Canadair-CF-104-Starfighter/0710092/L/
🙂
TEEJTEEJThe Israeli’s weren’t building the Nesher (Mirage), but simply assembling them from knockdown kits supplied by France. Gene Salvay revealed the details in Wings magazine from 2000. The embargo on the Mirage 5s that ended up being absorbed by the French Air Force was just a show. The kits were being supplied by the French through the back door.
IAI Nesher 501 on display in Israel has French manufacture plates.
David Lednicer who took the image also knew Gene Salvay and spoke to him in a telephone conversation to confirm it.
The following link should take you to the rec.aviation.military thread on Google Groups
‘Evidence that has been unearthed indicates that the Neshers were
manufacured in France and assembled in Israel. I have inspected the
remains of one of the Argentine Daggers, in a British museum and it is
filled with French made components.’
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Israel—Air/Dassault-Mirage-5J/0798878/M/
‘Despite the official story that this is an IAI Nesher, a check of the aircraft ID plates in the wheel wells reveals that this is really the first production Dassault Mirage 5J. On display in the Israel Air Force Museum.’
TJ
TEEJ‘Coroner sorry for ‘sloppy’ remark’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8295053.stm
TJ
TEEJCuito,
Go to the following link and click on Argentina.
http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.NSF
How is Argentina going to justify omitting this massive increase in combat aircraft? Argentina report their military holdings on a yearly basis.
How is China going to cover up the export of all those combat aircraft? Click on China for export registrations under the UN register.
Chile will not fail to notice this massive increase in Argentine pilot training. Chile also had an intelligence sharing agreement with the UK which probably still exists. Also consider the intelligence gathering from the islands themselves and the routine monitoring of Argentine airfields by sat recce. Such a massive build up will not go unnoticed.
Your plan lives firmly in the land of fantasy. Argentina is broke. No civilian government is going take Argentina down that path again. It would take a military coup for such a fantasy scenario to even be considered. The coup alone would cause the Argentine military to be even more closely monitored.
The return to military rule, and the overthrow of a democratic civilian government, would effectively stop any country exporting such arms to it. Argentina would be seen as the aggressor for any military move on the Falklands and face all the economic sanctions that the international community could throw at it. Argentina would be crippled.
TJ
TEEJThe answer is the differing yields that you have already mentioned. The high-yield B variant was developed in the early 1960s for use by the V-bomber force. It was intended as part of a national deterrent until the delivery of Polaris.
The C would have been developed to meet a NATO requirement for deployment in West Germany on RAF aircraft. US tactical nuclear B-61 bombs were also part of this NATO requirement. The US controlled them for use on Belgian, Netherlands, West German, Italian, Greek and Turkish aircraft.
TJ
TEEJIt might help if you can provide the exact type of ‘extender’ that you have?
Also what is the exact type of Nikon 200mm that you have? The more info of type/markings, etc will enable people to possibly assist you.
The following link is an index with pages and pages of the various Nikon variants of ‘extender/teleconverter’.
There are also compatibility charts for ‘extenders’teleconverters’ and lenses.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/teleconverter/index.htm
TJ
TEEJTheres no way it’s gonna shut any of the fools up, it’ll only drive them futher into madness.
Quite correct. Moon Hoax believer Jarrah White’s response to the LRO images.
TJ
TEEJTheres no way it’s gonna shut any of the fools up, it’ll only drive them futher into madness.
Quite correct. Moon Hoax believer Jarrah White’s response to the LRO images.
TJ
TEEJUnfortunately that weather front for the afternoon looks pretty bad. Such a shame that the weather hasn’t been playing ball.
TJ
TEEJYup, the Collings Foundation were going to get the last Thud at AMARC, which was considered the best example left for returning to the air……..but the DoD/USAF jobsworths got wind of it and ordered the airframe be cut to prevent it being returned to the air.
Very little chance now of a Thud getting back in the air.
How ironic that the US Govt did this and yet were quite happy to let two Su-27’s be imported from the Ukraine this year for the purpose of being allowed on the civilian register……….:confused:
The Su-27s are scheduled to be used on defence contracts. Similar tasks as to the privately owned Kfirs, Drakens etc in the U.S.
TJ
TEEJThe person to ask is Walt Bjorneby. As Sferrin has posted several USAF F-104 pilots hang out on rec.aviation.military. Walt Bjorneby is one. I’ll send Walt an e-mail. Perhaps he will come over to the forum to answer some questions?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20750&highlight=walt
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4243&highlight=walt
Here is some interesting comments about the F-104 from those who flew it. Rec.aviation.military postings:
Pilots Walt Bjorneby and Andy Bush:
Walt wrote:
“Okay, here goes. IMHO the only fighter back then that could give the 104 a fight was the F8 Crusader. I am sure the EE Lightning would be a real competitor but never even saw one. But when the Dash19 J79 was installed in the 104A it could easily wax the F8. The 106 was a good opponent until he quickly ran out of speed (delta wing drag) and fuel (J75 in AB). The F4 was mean at Sparrow ranges but in close going vertical ate him up. Note that the 104A maneuver flap speed limits were M1.8/550KIAS whichever was first. Using maneuver (takeoff) flaps made it about equal to the F4 in corner velocity. Kept the left hand busy – AB for accell, out of AB and select maneuver flaps for turn, straighten out, AB again, flaps up, zero G for more speed, then turn again and same all over again. Never got to go against an F15 however. Would have been interesting. One of the Zipper’s advantages was that it was very hard to see coming in. And now and then we would paint those white wings grey with water-base tempera as an addded ‘gouge’. Head on good eyes could see it at 3 miles on a clear day – not much time to react when it’s coming in at 1.4 (3B engine) or 1.6+ (-19). Like to see one reengined with a good turbofan with AB and F16 radar + RHAW gear. Still what I consider to be one of the best examples of sophisticated engineering. Difficult problems solved simply and efficiently, rather than same old same old assisted by huge engines.
In the Zipper. One thing most people don’t realize is that takeoff flaps could be used up to 550KIAS/1,8M. Using T/O flaps put the corner velocity down to about 425 IAS on a par with the F4. We used them very flexibly as they acted fast. Out for turn or pullup, in for accel, etc. Same with AB; off for high G, back on for accel. We used modified ‘loose deuce’ tactics beginning in ’65 since we were deployed as pairs rather than a flight of four. I do not know of any contemporay airplane that could stay with our re-engined 104s – same engine that went into the 104S except we were about 3000-3500 pounds lighter weight. I suppose the F22 or MiG29 could out-accel the little bird but M2.0 from M0.9 in 27 miles/1’45″/1000# fuel was pretty darned good for 1967. Attain and maintain M 1.05 cruise in non-AB, scheduled 1+30 training missions without external tanks, and an availability rate exceeding 90% speaks well for Lockheed, Kelly Johnson and GE. Just wish Kelly had been able to build the CL1200 Lancer.
Andy wrote:
Walt has it right…the 104 had a credible turn capability when using the maneuver flap position. I flew the jet at TOPGUN in ’78 when we wanted to verify some energy maneuverability data against the F-5E. We all were surprised when the ‘numbers’ worked out as well as they did. In addition, I have also flown the ‘hard wing’ and slatted versions of the F-4 and am familiar with the relative performance comparisons between the two a/c.”
TJ
TEEJWelcome, Bandit 42. Thanks for posting!
TJ
Sign In
