Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UN Inspectors Recon Planes  
User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Hi

Having just heard Hans Blix's report on Iraq, he mentioned that they now used U-2's and French (I guess Mirage IV's) recon planes as well as satellites. He did however also mentioned that they now also will have Russian planes available.

Does anyone know what plane this is?? The recon version of the MiG-25??

Regards
Søren Augustesen

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

What about the An-30?

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Hard to tell.

The russians did have a number of IL-18's converted to various radio platforms and some fisheries ones with a sidescan radar on the belly.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2212 times:

During the february speech, Blix made several mentions of low level recon being carried out by AN-2 biplanes. Makes sense to me. Low, slow, and long loiter times. I have not heard anything since that speech however.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2204 times:

yes Mirages4's. saw them on tv

Didn't know they were still around, first flight 1959 ....



User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Why is the high-altitude capability of the U-2 necessary in this case? Is it not possible to use aircraft from more normal altitudes on these missions or is it feared that Iraq would try to shoot down one of these UN recon planes?

Why is it not possible to use the US Army Beech C-12 variants, or EH-60, or a Navy pod-equipped F-14, or any of the highy-touted UAVS?

Or, to hammer home a point I have brought up here before, why not use one of the pod-equipped USAF F-16s? The latter does exist, doesn't it? Someone quick, show me a photo of one in current operational service!!!





User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Hi

I guess the reason why they use the U-2's and not a pod-equipped fighter is that the U-2 carries more sophisticated equipment than the recce pods. Also the area that has to be monitored is very large, and the U-2 has an endurance of more than 10 hours on its internal fuel, far longer than any fighter. As for the UAV's I would think that they also use them, but again the U-2 carries more sophisticated gear.

I don't think Iraq will attempt to shot any of the planes down, as this would basically give the USA a valid reason to launch a full scale attack.

I don't know if the USAF has any pod-equipped F-16's, but the ANG does have some recce pod equipped F-16's:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © G.Tonelotto



Regards
Søren Augustesen


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Just a few hours have gone by and here is what has transpired:
http://www.nandotimes.com/front/story/801802p-5715959c.html






User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Hi Tomh

Could you tell us what the link is about? When I click on it I have to log on to their site. Thanks in advance.

Regards
Søren Augustesen


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2164 times:

Iraq scrambled Migs to intercept to American U-2s that were flying as part of the U.N. inspection team. I guess that this is "Full Cooperation"? Yet again, another instance were the SR-71 would have made this a non-situation. At 85,000ft + and over Mach 3, Iraq could have scrambled all the Migs they wanted. The Habu crew would have just waived as they blew by.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Soren,
I apologize, I am a member of Nando and was able to see the article about the scrambled MiGs, of course you could not see it.

Anyway, CX747 answered your question correctly. For some reason the USA is playing down this intercept. The restraint exhibited by US/UK Air forces in the last couple of years has been truly impressive, though personally, I cannot understand why such a thing as an airworthy Iraqi MiG still exists.



User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Despite what the rest of the world thinks, the U.S. and the U.K. have shown quite a remarkable amount of restraint when it comes to these infractions. Again, I would love nothing more than to have a SR-71 blast over Baghdad at 500ft.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

The next time, the U.S. launches a U.N. sanctioned U-2 observation flight over Iraq, they should have 4 F-14 Tomcats circling. If a blip shows up on the radar screen, Phoenix missiles should be sent as a hello.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

CX747,
That's the way to do it. Trouble is the age of the F-14 fleet seems to be making the USN a one jet force-F/A-18 only! (Slight exaggeration). Yes, a Phoenix in the face at 75 miles is likely to keep airspace congestion to a minimum.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

75 miles, beyond visual range ...

cool !

pls take care it not an A300 agian

resulting encounters might be unexpected :



pls don't ask how they got them, might be confusing for a good guys/ bad guys world view


User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

Ok I haven't heard about the scrambling of MiG's against UN planes. I wonder why USA/UK are laying low on this.

As for the F-14's for CAP it would most likely keep most Iraqi MiG's well away. The only problem would be the frequent trips to the tanker they would have to make.

As for the Iranian F-14's, they got them while they were on the "good guys" team in the 1970's (along with lots of other US military hardware).

Regards
Søren Augustesen



User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Actually, the F-14 has a remarkebly long loiter time, so tanker trips would not be as frequent as F/A-18s or F-16s. As for the F-14 being old, that is true but they are pulling their fair weight. In fact, it is the Tomcats who led the Operation Enduring Freedom sorties. They were able to carry much more ordance than the Hornets and not need as much gas.

As for the Iranian A300, that was a missile fired from a ship, not an aircraft. Also, one thing that led to that tragedy taking place was the fact that the IRAF used to fly extremely close to their civilian aircraft in order to get closer to the U.S. battle groups. It was a horrific loss though.

Does anyone have figures on how the F/A-18Es of VFA-115 are staking up against VF-31's F-14Ds? Both are currently onboad the Lincoln.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

Most of the Iranian F-14's are not flyable...they got 79 of them I think, only a tiny fraction are airworthy I believe...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Tomh:
I cannot understand why such a thing as an airworthy Iraqi MiG still exists.

There are restrictions but Iraq is allowed to maintain an army/air force.

For some reason the USA is playing down this intercept.

Yes, I don't really see why but according to German media, the agreement says "one U2 per time". This time two planes took off.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

NoUFO,

Yeah, I know all that. This is no more than the legacy of a defective earlier agreement. One can seriously question why "Iraq is allowed to maintain an army/air force." And one can question the logic that led the US to agree to "one U2 per time".

Subject to change at any moment.







User currently offlineKolobokman From Russia, joined Oct 2000, 1180 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Russia has offered a few An-30B's a while ago...


[Edited 2003-03-17 05:15:05]


I can neither confirm, nor deny above post
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UN Inspectors Recon Planes
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Planes Breaking Sound Barrier posted Tue Dec 19 2006 01:51:58 by BOSGRU
NZ Army Puts Spy Planes To The Test posted Thu Oct 19 2006 11:32:13 by 777ER
Toilets On Military Planes? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 05:18:27 by LimaNiner
3 US Navy (?) Planes At SFO posted Sat Oct 7 2006 16:13:40 by Leamside
Fighter Planes Intercept Russian Bombers posted Sun Oct 1 2006 00:16:08 by Clickhappy
UN Peacekeepers In Lebanon posted Wed Aug 2 2006 15:04:42 by Bennett123
Looking For Some Military Planes Unit Price posted Wed Jul 19 2006 22:53:34 by Chrisdigo
Questions About 707 Awacs Planes posted Wed May 17 2006 02:05:46 by FlyingNanook
Is The B-52 Is One The Best USAF Planes Ever? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 19:30:27 by 747400sp
Large Amount Of Military Planes Overhead posted Thu Mar 9 2006 21:35:43 by Ryanair0pk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format