# Israeli Nuke Strike On Iran Averted ?



## comiso90 (Apr 17, 2007)

I don't believe everything I read but this sounds plausible!

*Reporter Claims Israeli Nuke Strike On Iran Averted By U.S. Fighters*

Sources say F16 suicide mission armed with 20-kiloton bomb recalled by Israelis under threat of U.S. Sidewinder missile shootdown

As escalation towards a war with Iran reaches fever pitch, an online journalist today breaks the astounding news that Israeli fighter jets have already attempted to bomb tactical locations in Iran with nuclear weapons nearly twice as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, only to be turned back by U.S. warplanes over Iraq.

William Thomas, familiar to many for his work in ascertaining the true nature of chemtrails, cites two sources with U.S. and other military contacts who told him that on two recent occasions Israeli fighter bombers armed with both conventional and nuclear weapons were turned back by U.S. planes under threat of missile interception.

The latest incident occurred on January 7th, claims Thomas, in which jets trespassed beyond the authorized zone over Iraq "Before being recalled by Israeli authorities." Sources told Thomas that the attack squadron "Comprised three IAF F-16s. Each carried conventional munitions—as well as a single 20-kiloton nuclear bomb."

Thomas goes into great depth about the circumstances behind the attempted raid in a near 5,000 word article posted on his website.

According to Thomas' source, Israeli warplanes "Are routinely “topped off” by American aerial refueling tankers, but only on condition that the Israeli jets fly a “racetrack” holding pattern—and do not continue “downtown” toward Iran."

The target of the January 7 raid was purported to be Iran's 3rd Tactical Air Base at Hamadan, where Revolutionary Guard troops and substantial weapons deposits are stationed. The source even suggested that the attack was designed to be a one way kamikaze mission whereby, "Volunteer pilots are prepared to fly their nuclear bombs “into their targets” if necessary."

The news dovetails yesterday's scare, briefly provoked by a rumor that an Iranian missile had struck a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf. "The bond market briefly pared losses on talk of possible military engagement between the United States and Iran, but turned back down after the Defense Department said the incident did not occur," reported Reuters.

This followed reports on Wednesday that Iran had shot down a U.S. drone near its border.

Reporter Claims Israeli Nuke Strike On Iran Averted By U.S. Fighters

Israeli Nuke Strike On Iran Turned Back By USAF Over Iraq?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Sounds interesting.....but I am not sure about Israel trying to nuke Iran.....yet.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 17, 2007)

The source is a guy who promotes the "chemtrail" theory. 

I don't buy it. Makes for a good read though. Wishful thinking that someone on this planet earth has the balls to put a stop to this before it's too late.


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

sadly that theory is real strong in a town of size - college of course - 45 minutes to my S.E. and is infecting some of the local populace


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> The source is a guy who promotes the "chemtrail" theory.
> 
> I don't buy it. Makes for a good read though. Wishful thinking that someone on this planet earth has the balls to put a stop to this before it's too late.



I'm not a believer either but I won't outright dismiss it...

It's sad to say that sometimes the lunatic fringe news sources make real scoops.

If it wasn't for "The Drudge Report" we may have never found out about Ms. Lewinski and her oral presentation skills.
.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> The source is a guy who promotes the "chemtrail" theory.


Right there that tells me this guy is a kook. BTW I think I debated him on another forum - after 3 or 4 days of humilitating pounding he left the forum...

Bullshit!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Ms. Lewinski and her oral presentation skills.
> .




I like that one.


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

so Monica needs to be dropped over Tehran with her mouth wide open ? geez bummer for her

nah Israel will do what it wants when it wants and with what it wants without the US being notified ......... it is all part of it's independent heritage


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2007)

Find it hard to believe. Sooner or later the IAF will do something of the sort if Iran looks like getting nuclear warheads.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 17, 2007)

Erich said:


> nah Israel will do what it wants when it wants and with what it wants without the US being notified ......... it is all part of it's independent heritage



I agree... If they wanted to nuke Iran, they'd find a way.

Even if we knew about it, we'd never admit it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

renrich said:


> Find it hard to believe. Sooner or later the IAF will do something of the sort if Iran looks like getting nuclear warheads.




Agreed


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I agree... If they wanted to nuke Iran, they'd find a way.
> 
> Even if we knew about it, we'd never admit it.




LOL Agreed


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 17, 2007)

renrich said:


> Find it hard to believe. Sooner or later the IAF will do something of the sort if Iran looks like getting nuclear warheads.



I never thought they would have gotten away with bombing the reactor in Iraq (1981).

Sure it caused increased animosity but there was no response!
How the hell did they get away with that?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 7 | 1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

Comiso no mid-east nation at the time in 81 was able and is still not able to put the hammer down on Israel, the Soviets and China are thinking about it but that is all for the moment. Tehran is full of big fluff, hot air, bad gas or whatever you want to call it. Israel has full potential right now to cause a death blow on persia if it feels but am glad to say it has restrained it's powerful arm ~


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 17, 2007)

And isn't that what separates the Isrealis (and hte western world) from Arab/Islamic societies?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 17, 2007)

"William Thomas, familiar to many for his work in ascertaining the true nature of chemtrails"

If that work concluded that it was only condensation, it would be one thing...

Do you really think that the Israelis would be dumb enough to launch a nuclear attack unprovoked?

They are smarter than that.


----------



## renrich (Apr 17, 2007)

I don't necessarily think the Israelis will go nuclear with Iran but you can bet if they believe that Iran is getting in shape to threaten them with nuclear weapons(the only way they can strike Israel) the Israelis will strike first and the devil take the hindmost!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

evangilder said:


> "William Thomas, familiar to many for his work in ascertaining the true nature of chemtrails"
> 
> If that work concluded that it was only condensation, it would be one thing...
> 
> ...



Define unprovoked


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Chemtrails - My favorite subject! This was from another site I'm involved with. I didn't write it, but is says it all.....

"The Chemtrail Hoax

Six Reasons why "Chemtrails" are a Hoax 
I first heard about "chemtrails" about five years ago, from an individual on a pre-Y2k preparedness forum. About six months later, I logged onto one of the chemtrail forums, and followed many links, evaluating both pro-chemtrail and anti-chemtrail research. I have also talked to many people about these phenomena, including meteorologists, commercial airplane pilots/crew, and other aerospace engineers with direct experience with large fixed-wing aircraft. I came to conclusions that I would like to discuss below; but first, I'd like to tell you about me, because it may (or may not) give you some insights as to why I believe what I do. 

First, I want to emphasize that I do not speak for, or act as an agent for, my employer, The Boeing Company, in any way, shape, or form. My views are completely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views on anyone else at Boeing. As a matter of fact, I doubt if most of my colleagues have even heard of chemtrails. However, with thirty years in the aerospace/defense business, experience as a pilot (small aircraft only) and a habit of reading a lot, I hope that my views have something to back them up. Okay, here's my read on the view that some contrails are more than normal jet engine exhaust: 

It's completely bogus. The idea that long-lasting contrails are anything other than normal contrails, in my belief, fails on six counts: 

1. The existence of a huge and sinister plot is completely lacking in evidence. 

2. The logistics of a massive spraying program would be an order of magnitude higher than the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Moon Landing, or the Vietnam War -- and simply could not be hidden from any oversight. 

3. There is no evidence whatsoever of aircraft modified to perform some of the spraying methodologies that are proposed. 

4. Anecdotal "evidence" of any illnesses caused by contrails is not backed up by any reliable data (and is actually contradicted by others). 

5. There has never been any evidence of anyone collecting some of this "chemtrail" material in situ, having it tested by any reputable laboratory, and presented to anyone. 

6. Every characteristic of chemtrails can be just as logically and rationally explained by normal contrails under normal (but differentiating) atmospheric conditions. 

Now let's look at those counts in a bit more detail. 

(1) The existence of a huge and sinister plot is completely lacking in evidence. The President; Congress; SecDef; Director of the FAA; the entire command structure of the various armed services; every military man or woman who flies, maintains, fuels, and overhauls aircraft; every commercial pilot and crew member; every meteorologist; and every aerospace engineer who builds, sells, modifies, or maintains the entire fleet of worldwide commercial aircraft comprise a group of about half a million people. Every one of them would have to be in on the plot. And in the X number of years that this "chemtrail" stuff has been going on, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has come out and said anything about it! What is the chance of a plot that requires the help of a half-million people being secret for more than six milliseconds? Zero. 
As a matter of fact, there is no evidence of any sort of plot of any kind by the Bilderbergers, Illuminati, International Zionists, CFR, NWO, the International House of Pancakes, or anyone else. 

Is our government corrupt and immoral? I believe so. Is the UN controlled by a bunch of socialist third-world losers with their hands out for the US to feed them and fight their wars for them? I think so, too. But that does NOT mean that they are heading a huge, secret, centuries-old plot to have the Black Helicopters Manned By Crack Bolivian Troops In Blue Berets Haul Us Off To The Secret Concentration Camps In Roachspit, Texas Where We Will Be Forced To Knit UN Flags And Eat Ebola-Burgers. It just means that they're crooks! So what else is new? 

(2) The logistics of a massive spraying program. In order to have the massive worldwide spraying that the chemtrail-protagonists talk about would require thousands of aircraft, flying 24/7 shifts, with the additional support infrastructure, a bazillion pilots and ground crew, and the combined efforts of every employee at Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and even Airbus Industrie. It isn't there. 
(3) There is no evidence whatsoever of aircraft modified to perform some of the spraying methodologies that are proposed. The only things I have ever seen on an aircraft that shoot things out (besides the engine exhaust) is the toilet and the fuel dump orifices, often at the wing tip. If the aircraft are squirting chemicals out of the fuel dump nozzles, what's in the fuel tanks? Poisonous chemicals? Huh-uh. (One exception to this is a military version of a civilian aircraft called TACAMO, a Navy variant of the AWACS aircraft. It has these oddball nozzles near the base of the wings. But they're still fuel-dump nozzles; they've merely been moved inboard because the TACAMO has reconnaissance pods at the wingtips, and they don't want to jettison JP-8 over the million-dollar electronics.) 

Bear in mind that you don't just strap in a couple of big tanks and poke the nozzles out through the aircraft fuselage. There are VERY stringent engineering details to be worked out regarding structural integrity, movable center of gravity, environmental protection for the crew and poison-loaders, etc. Almost all major mods to an aircraft are done under subsequent contract to the original builder. Since no one at Boeing knows anything about such mods (and I've asked around) this means it either wasn't done, or everyone else (but me) in the company is in on the secret. Huh-uh. 

(4) Anecdotal "evidence" of any illnesses caused by contrails is not backed up. One of the hypotheses of "chemtrails" is that they're toxic/infectious/bad juju. Various people report that they came down with flu-like symptoms after a heavy "spray day". As someone who does a lot of travel (domestic and international), I've flown out of a lot of airports and through a lot of other aircraft's contrails over the past five years. 
If the poison-chemtrail hypothesis had any merit, there would be tons of sick passengers crawling off the 0900 shuttle to LAX; I've never seen 'em, nor has anyone I've talked with. If there is some weird residue in the contrails other than water with traces of JP-8, you'd see aircraft taxiing into the concourse with some sort of crud over the leading edges. I've never seen any of that, nor has anyone I've talked with. 
One possible explanation for those flu-like symptoms? Flu. There's tons of it going around, and it's been that way since 1918. 

(5) There has never been any evidence of anyone collecting some of this "chemtrail" material in situ, having it tested by any reputable laboratory, and presented to anyone. With all the interest in this crud, why hasn't anyone ever flown up to a "chemtrail", sampled some of the stuff, and brought it back to a reputable lab for test and reported on it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

Pt. II


One site purporting to talk about a laboratory testing a sample told how some individual scraped "something" off the side of a house, and sent it to one of the chemtrail protagonists. This individual sent it to a laboratory where he says they reported it had some bacteria in it. But then the individual says the lab "changed its mind" and said there was nothing wrong. Not only that, but our friend said he would not tell us the name of either the lab or the investigator because of ... of... something or other. That sure raises a credibility issue to me! Another researcher says he has the information, but he wants to be "compensated" for all the work he's put in before he tells us his tale. Puh-leez! 

If there were just one case of someone with any credibility collecting some of this junk before it falls to the earth and gets worms on it, then sends it to a lab where objective individuals can review it under open conditions and publish their findings, that might lend a bit more credence to the whole chemtrail business. I'm waiting, but I don't think I'll skip dinner. 

(6) Every characteristic of chemtrails can be just as logically and rationally explained by normal contrails under normal (but differentiating) atmospheric conditions. 

But first, let?s take a minute and discuss what contrails are, anyway. 

Contrails happen when the water vapor from the jet?s exhaust freezes into an ice cloud. If the temperature is at or below ?40 degrees and the relative humidity is at a hundred percent or greater, then the ice cloud will stay frozen, and even act as a nucleus for other ice clouds to form around. This is why sometimes a contrail will ?spread? to form larger clouds. If you have enough aircraft flying and making contrails, and the atmospheric conditions at that altitude are ?proper? for contrail formation and persistence, then you can have the entire sky covered with thin clouds. 

If the temperature is above minus forty degrees or less than 100% relative humidity, then the ice crystals will sublime (turn back into gas without going through a liquid phase, like dry ice) in about a minute or less and the contrails will disappear. 

This increased cloud cover, by the way, can have serious long-term effects, when you think about it. More cloud cover means cooler days (because the clouds block the sunlight coming in during the day) and warmer nights (because the clouds block the heat radiating out into space at night). This ?diurnal temperature delta? or the difference between day and night temperatures, could have some long-term effects, because most plants and animals in a particular environment have adapted to a temperature difference of so many degrees. When this figure is left, the plants and animals might not be able to thrive. 

So when you put it this way, contrails can have a possible bad effect on the environment. But that?s not what the chemtrail-believers are talking about. 

Now to the ?weird chemtrails?: 

?Dashed? contrails? Sometimes you?ll see contrails that start and stop, just like dashed lines. Some Chemtrail-believers say that such things are ?proof? of chemtrails, because the start and stop contrails are the result of the ?spray nozzles? getting stuck or something. 

Now does it seem kind of odd to you that a powerful gang running secret plot which includes a million people can?t seem to be able to keep a simple on-off nozzle working? Actually, the reasons that you have start-and-stop contrails is because the atmosphere is not constant and smooth; it?s very turbulent (which is why we have clouds and wind). It?s pretty common to have one spot at, say, 35,000 feet where the temperature/humidity is at ?40/100%, yet only a quarter mile away, the temperature?s a degree or so higher, or the humidity is a percentage point less. That?s enough to stop the contrail from persisting. And believe me, an aircraft flying at 550 miles per hour covers that quarter mile in just a couple of seconds! 

Circular contrails? Often, an airport may be backed up and the air traffic control folks might ?stack up? aircraft in a circular holding pattern for a half-hour (or even longer). If that plane?s flying in a circle at the proper temperature/humidity profile, you?ll see circular contrails. 

Two ?side-by-side? contrails, one that dissipates in a matter of minutes, and the other which persists for hours? The chances are that they?re not side-by-side, but one is a thousand feet or more higher than another. When you?re looking at aircraft at a cruising altitude, you simply can?t tell which aircraft is closer. You have no frame of reference except the sky, and besides six miles high is just too far for us to have any kind of depth perception at all. 

?Tic-tac-toe? contrails? No matter where you live in the continental United States, you are probably within view of at least one North-South and one East-West air corridor. So you might be seeing three aircraft on the DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth to LAX (Los Angeles International) corridor and four from Phoenix Sky Harbor to Seattle-Tacoma International corridor. These flights could be five minutes and two thousand feet apart, but if they?re high enough, you?ll see seven lines crossing ? just like a tic-tac-toe. (you probably won?t see any X?s or O?s, though). 

Conclusion 

So why the big deal with "Chemtrails"? I think there're popular on the boards for several reasons. 

1. Conspiracies are fun! If you think you know what they're REALLY doing, maybe it makes you feel more powerful and on the "inside". Only the "sheeple" believe all the government lies, where WE know better. You remember the sheeple, of course -- they were those poor fools who believed that Y2K was going to be, at worse, a bump in the road. Shows how dumb they were, right? 

2. Most chemtrail conspiracy theorists simply don't know much about things that would help them to disbelieve such hypotheses: stuff like engineering, meteorology, government procurement, military force structure, etc. But most importantly, the most of these individuals simply don't understand how scientific investigation and research works. They confuse opinion with facts, equate hypotheses with theories, do not reason logically, engage in ad hominem arguments, cannot or will not read peer-reviewed journals --- the list goes on and on. 

Maybe I shouldn't get so exercised about the whole chemtrail business. In a way, it's like the belief in the Easter Bunny -- it keeps the folks happy; and as long as they don't try to shoot down a "chemtrail" plane, or assassinate or otherwise harass people who disagree with them, they're harmless. 

But there are so many important things in the world that I consider a real priority -- Government intrusion into our lives, a nutburg foreign and domestic policy, the chance that a natural disaster may justify all those old Y2K preps, the pollution of our atmosphere and destruction of our environment by hydrocarbon burning -- that I hate to think that well-meaning but naive people on these and other forums are wasting their time on what is no more than a silly and cruel hoax."


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

Ok.....if Dan is the Minister of Whoopass........


Joe....needs a name to.

Here is the thread to choose a name for Joe.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/of...uld-joes-handle-nickname-7716.html#post240963


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm flattered....


----------



## evangilder (Apr 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Define unprovoked



Simple really. Unless threatened with annihilation, or having been subjected to an NBC attack. Israeli politicians know that committing a nuclear first strike would be political suicide. Besides, three F-16s fully armed with nuclear or conventional weapons would not be enough to take out all of the nuclear sites in Iran. The Israelis are much better tacticians than to make a foolhardy strike like that. It would be a well planned attack that would wipe out all nuclear ambitions for Iran for the foreseeable future.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Ok.....if Dan is the Minister of Whoopass........
> 
> 
> Joe....needs a name to.
> ...



What? Tech guy doesn't cover it?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

evangilder said:


> What? Tech guy doesn't cover it?



Nope


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

evangilder said:


> Simple really. Unless threatened with annihilation, or having been subjected to an NBC attack. Israeli politicians know that committing a nuclear first strike would be political suicide. Besides, three F-16s fully armed with nuclear or conventional weapons would not be enough to take out all of the nuclear sites in Iran. The Israelis are much better tacticians than to make a foolhardy strike like that. It would be a well planned attack that would wipe out all nuclear ambitions for Iran for the foreseeable future.



Ok.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 17, 2007)

Even if the guy is a hoax, I kept noticing the word "Russian" in the article. Thats probably true, but it makes you realize in fighting Iran we will be actually be fighting Russia's weapons and scientists. 

I don't think the Big Red One is completely gone yet and like many have said, still bears a grudge agains't us. 

Putin does have the problem of a much weaker army than before, which is a good thing.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 17, 2007)

Some Russian, some older American arms. They do still have a number of F-14A models from years ago. How many of them are still airworthy is a big question. But the US has put an embargo on all sales of surplus items that could be used in the F-14, even multi-aircraft related parts such as bolts, etc. So there is obviously still a concern about those Tomcats.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 17, 2007)

First time I've heard of Chemtrails. I honestly have to say that was funny. It was so stupid, it defies anything but humor. Massive spraying of the US to drug us? 

Somebody out there needs to double their doseage.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

I first heard about it when I was a teenager I think........even then I thought it was stupid.


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2007)

As I said earlier this has been going on for some time - years, since the 70's. my wonder has always been talking with some of the sphere folk is what they have been smoking


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 17, 2007)

How about an Israeli in a coventional strike against Iran?

What is their "Wild Weasel" aircraft? Do they have their own version of the HARM missle?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 17, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> How about an Israeli in a coventional strike against Iran?
> 
> What is their "Wild Weasel" aircraft? Do they have their own version of the HARM missle?



It will happen if Iran keeps working on a nuclear bomb. If Iran were allowed to get and use nuclear tech for just energy.....not sure what Israel would if anything. But UN would have to be able to inspect at will any place in Iran or Israel would not trust Iran.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2007)

timshatz said:


> First time I've heard of Chemtrails. I honestly have to say that was funny. It was so stupid, it defies anything but humor. Massive spraying of the US to drug us?
> 
> Somebody out there needs to double their doseage.



Oh there's ton of sites on Chemtrails - more diminishing gene pool...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh there's ton of sites on Chemtrails - more diminishing gene pool...



It is really rather sad that, given a whole lifetime of things to think about, people waste it on totally implausable theories that the Govt is out to get them. Reminds me of when the 60s radicals sued the Govt to see their FBI files. Took years to go through the courts and finally, they won. Files were released and a lot of these guys found out the Govt didn't even know they existed or considered them nobodies.

Of course, that was another Govt Plot as well...


----------



## evangilder (Apr 17, 2007)

I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of government plots anywhere in the world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2007)

I can see Israel launching an airstrike on Iranian Nuke sites but not a nuclear strike themselves. Not yet.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 18, 2007)

evangilder said:


> I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of government plots anywhere in the world.



Even the ones that do exist, the ones that don't exist, the ones that might exist and....ahhhhhh forgetaboutit...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can see Israel launching an airstrike on Iranian Nuke sites but not a nuclear strike themselves. Not yet.



Agreed


----------



## Erich (Apr 18, 2007)

my opinion is that Syria may get a taste before Persia does ... 2 ¢


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Erich said:


> my opinion is that Syria may get a taste before Persia does ... 2 ¢



Syria is being good right now....remaining quite and letting Iran take all the heat and risk.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> How about an Israeli in a coventional strike against Iran?
> 
> What is their "Wild Weasel" aircraft? Do they have their own version of the HARM missle?



F-16s with AGM-78 Anti-Radiation Missile...me thinks.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> F-16s with AGM-78 Anti-Radiation Missile...me thinks.



I was thinking they may still use F-4's for wild weasel... it's certainly fast enough. Why not save the F-16, KFIR and F-15 for the actual strike and air superiority?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

I think that they got rid of them because of heavy maintenance concerns. I'll check and post what is the AvWeek. Hold on...


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2007)

Cool... Thanks

I like the image of an F-4 barreling in, belching smoke and "lighting up" a SAM site... the aircraft fits the image nicely... 
Brute Force to gouge out the eyes.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

Yep. Right out of the AvWeek Aviation Sourcebook 2007. Isreal no longer uses F-4s (at least operationally). I would have thought that Isreal would have had AGM-88 HARMs, but I can't find a reference for them.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2007)

A world without F4's?....I'm getting old.

That must mean they have a pretty fat inventory of capabile aircraft.

I hate to see a dogfighter or strike aircraft used as a platform for a anti-radiation missle.

Bring back the F-105!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

I won't type in their full inventory, but here are tactical aircraft of merit...

F-15A (20)
F-15B (6)
F-15C (17)
F-15D (9)
F-15I (25)

F-16A (78 ) Thats an eight by the way. 
F-16B (17)
F-16C (78 )
F-16D (49)
F-16I (21)

As you can imagine, they are likely using the F-16D two seater for the SEAD role. With some F-15I and F-16I special operations capable.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2007)

They use exclusivly American now?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

With the exception of ...

Dornier Do 28 (12)
Aerospatiale SA365 (2)
IAI Westwind 1124N (3)

Yep.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 18, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> With the exception of ...
> 
> Dornier Do 28 (12)


As an israeli, 
I'd be a touch nervious about flying that for the first time fresh from the factory


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2007)

Matt I edited your post to get rid of the faces...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

Thanks, FBJ.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> A world without F4's?....I'm getting old.
> 
> That must mean they have a pretty fat inventory of capabile aircraft.
> 
> ...



Germany still uses the F-4 for Recon purposes. I had one fly over my helicopter on one of my last flights.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

If I'm not mistaken, the Luftwaffe decomissioned the F-4 in 2005.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2007)

I'd laugh if the Iranians launched a nuke at Israel and it landed in the Gaza strip on top of the Hamas HQ.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Oh sweet irony. That would be funny.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 19, 2007)

Yeah  The other possibility is it hits Lebanon and Hezbollah instead...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Oh, and Adler, my apologies. Germany is still using about 55 F-4s according the my sourcebook.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

What about Japan and Iran? Last thing I heard they still had Phantoms...

Matt, are you also going to apologize to me? 
Kris


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Oh sweet irony. That would be funny.



Sweet irony would be if it fell out of the sky on Tehran itself.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Kinda like the old space attempts. Just lifts off, tilts to the right, and ...

BOOM!!

...world peace.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the Luftwaffe decomissioned the F-4 in 2005.



Not for recon purposes. I had one fly over my Blackhawk at about 5000ft last year. He was maybe 250 to 500 ft over us.

Here are the squadrons that use each aircraft:

JG 71 "Richthofen" - F-4
JG 74 - F-4
JG 73 - Eurofighter
JG 31 "Boelke" - Tornado
JG 32 - Tornado
JG 33 - Tornado
JG 51 "Immelmann" - Tornado

NATO Joint Fighter Training School - T-37 and T-38

Flugbereitschaft des Bundesministerium der Veteidigun (Defense Mininstry) - Airbus A 310 and CL-601 

Lufttransport Geschwader 61 - C-160D
Lufttransport Geschwader 62 - C-160D
Lufttransport Geschwader 63 - C-160D


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

I corrected my post yesterday. You are right. I show they still have about 55 on the books. That's quite a few actually.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Oh, and Adler, my apologies. Germany is still using about 55 F-4s according the my sourcebook.



Sorry I had not read that part yet.

Yeap they will all soon be gone though with the Eurofighter. The recon duties of the F-4 will also be gone with the Recon Tornados like the ones sent to Afganistan a few weeks ago.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not for recon purposes. I had one fly over my Blackhawk at about 5000ft last year. He was maybe 250 to 500 ft over us.



I was fortunate enough to be “buzzed” by two F-22's in our Cessna 414 over the Sierra Nevada’s. Our pilot heard them on the radio and asked them for a flyby and they complied. They were 1000-1500 feet away.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Sweet!


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

According to the Luftwaffe, _Die letzte F-4F wird die Luftwaffe wahrscheinlich erst im Jahr 2012 verlassen, wenn das Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen" auf den Eurofighter umrüstet. _
No translation needed me thinks.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I was fortunate enough to be “buzzed” by two F-22's in our Cessna 414 over the Sierra Nevada’s. Our pilot heard them on the radio and asked them for a flyby and they complied. They were 1000-1500 feet away.



That must have been cool.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That must have been cool.



The setting of Sierra made it even more cool. We were in between Las Vegas and Central Cal. It was nice of them to give some tax payers a look at the latest hardware... the pilots didn't have to do that... we appreciated it very much.

On another trip, I saw a B-2 about 2500 ft below us near Edwards AFB. The thing looked like it didn't belong in the air. Seeing one from above was a interesting perspective.

Those F-4 must have been a sight.... mean and dirty


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

I was on a test flight once and happened to look out the forward door window and about 4000ft below us was a B-52 tanking with a KC-135. Pretty cool to actually watch.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Ever seen a C-130 do NOE flight? We were flying at about 2200ft and below us in the Low Level Training area was a C-130! That was pretty cool.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

I worked with a guy who was an AOPA rep. He was a C-130 driver and had recently completed his Air-to-Air training. Apparently it involved high speed NOE evasion in mountainous terrain. When the Red Force aircraft came in for a run, they would turn into the engagement. He claimed (I think a bit dubiously) that his likelihood of escaping such an encounter was high due to the inherent maneuverability of the Herc versus the high speed of the Red Force aircraft. Interesting discussion nonetheless.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Thats crazy! I have respect for those guys though. After seeing how they flew out of Iraq to keep from getting hit by Manpads! Fricken crazy with such a plane. My hats off to the Herc.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats crazy! I have respect for those guys though. After seeing how they flew out of Iraq to keep from getting hit by Manpads! Fricken crazy with such a plane. My hats off to the Herc.



Does JATO have practical applications or has it been religated to airshows and '72 Buicks?

This last weekend I was at the Long beach Grand Prix. Right after the National Anthem, I expected to see the obligitory F-18's screaming by but instead they sent a C-17. It banked on it's wigtip and was pretty darn low. I was suprised at how much i enjoyed seeing that lumbering bus cruise by.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

JATO? I don't know. Blue Angels still use them in airshow so does that mean they are still in the inventory? Probably.

I've posted this before, but the McChord AFB hosts a yearly show. And the C-17 steals it everytime with STOL, backing up, and as you noted turning on its wing at speeds that look like they defy physics. Impressive aircraft to say the least.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Does JATO have practical applications or has it been religated to airshows and '72 Buicks?



For takeoff when the aircraft is heavy or needs to get off the ground quickly I guess they could use it. I dont know I never worked with 130s. I only flew on them into Kosovo one time and in and out of Iraq a few times.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> JATO? And the C-17 steals it everytime with STOL, backing up, and as you noted turning on its wing at speeds that look like they defy physics. Impressive aircraft to say the least.



I'm happy that u said that. I thought I was a dork for thinking that a transport plane was so cool.

It looked like the pilot was going to do a barrel roll


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I'm happy that u said that. I thought I was a dork for thinking that a transport plane was so cool.
> 
> It looked like the pilot was going to do a barrel roll



No - you're not a dork for thinking that. All of us in the military (except maybe the Tom Cruise jet jock types ) think that the C-17 is friggen awesome. I sure do!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

Until you'be seen it, you really can't imagine such maneuvers by such a large airplane.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

Here's a taste...


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 21, 2007)

Holy Shat!

Beautiful! A cross between a starship and a whale with an attitude.

Are those canards on the engines? why?

I always dimissed the C-17 as just a newer version of the C-141 with STOL ability... Boy was I wrong! that is an awsome war bird. I'm glad i got to see it maneuver in person...

When will there be a AC-17?

That needs to be a new thread! great pic!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

Vortex generators. You have probably seen the vortex generators on other aircraft (see the Javelin below).

For STOL, these aircraft generally must operate at low speeds during takeoff and landing, so the flow speed over the wings tends to be low as well. Aircraft like the C-17 use vortex generators to create a higher-speed flow over the wings and control surfaces at these conditions to improve performance and controllability. In the case of the C-17, the vortex generators are located on the sides of the engine nacelles rather than on the wings but they still produce the same beneficial effects.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 21, 2007)

I don't believe the USAF has any plans for an AC-17. They still have the AC-130s. Also, the C-17 is large, and a workhorse as their medium long hauler.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

The next generation AC-XXX aircraft is being debated as we write this. The acronym cannot even be agree upon since the aircraft will not be a "gunship" per se. Rather, the next generation AC-XXX will have both explosive and non-explosive ordnance. The capabilities being discussed include those mirroring todays gunship plus beamed energy weapons capable of disabling and/or destroying electronics and hardware, as well as inflicting physical damage to personnel and equipment. Times are a-changin'.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 21, 2007)

That C-17 picture was really cool! I first thought it was a computer model but the guy seems to make some great shots.

Aviation Photos: Kevin Whitehead - Jetwash Images

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 21, 2007)

Yep. His open bays of the F-22 are fantastic. Evangilder has a similar pic, but not with the same zoom. Amazing that the F-22 can carry so much internal armament. 4 AIM-9/6 AIM-120 or 4 AIM-9/2 AIM120/4 SDBs.

I've never read that those bays are wet however. That would be interesting to know.


----------

