That last comment ought have continued, "if it wasn't true". Sorry

"The USAF and USN concentrate on long range interceptions that emphasize AWACS and AMRAAM." My impression is that it's become difficult to get BVR rules of engagment for American forces more than a decade, now, stretching back to before the First Gulf War. In the deployments which have actually been made, there's been a real reluctance to allow shots without absolute identifications, and, in practice, that has often meant visual id. IIRC, when the debate over whether or not to phase out the Phoenix went on, one of the arguments used to retire it - apart from the one about the lack of intended targets,with the breakup of the USSR and lack of heavy bombers in other forces - was that it was so long ranged that there was no good way to get an id on a bogey. Planners are compelled to think more about scenarios of limited engagement, in limited war, these days, rather than general war. The fear is hitting a neutral, especially a civilian neutral, a la the shoot down of that Iranian airliner way back when, in the Persian Gulf.

Rattle, I don't have a beef with you. But, in 1970 the russians fielded "volunteers" with the egyptian air force. as a legacy of that Nixon had the 82nd air borne on standby if the scales shifted. "... Fortunately, the United States had accepted an order for A-4 Skyhawks in 1966, and the first aircraft arrived late in 1968. Extensive political lobbying rapidly led to the USA becoming Israel's principal arms supplier. Quantities of the C-130 Hercules and Sikorsky S-65 were soon forthcoming, but the aircraft the Israelis really wanted was the F-4 Phantom II. The arrival of this type in September 1969 allowed the IDF/AF to mount deep penetration raids into Egypt, well behind the Suez Canal SAM barrier. These strikes proved particularly effective. In response, the Russians supplied Egypt with more SAM missiles and radar guided anti-aircraft guns. Also supplied were 150 of the latest model MiG-21MF interceptors, and the Russian 'volunteer' pilots to fly them. During June and early July 1970, the Russian piloted fighters successfully intercepted a number of Israeli air attacks. On 30 July 1970, the IDF/AF staged a pre-planned ambush of the Russian pilots and shot five down for no loss" January 7, 1970 Beginning of IAF attacks of inland Egypt targets. February 28, 1970 :Egyptian SAM-3, with Russian crews, became operational. July 1970 : Russian pilots began flying Egyptian Migs. July 30, 1970 : 5 Migs, piloted by Russian, were shot down in air battle. August 8, 1970 : End of War of Attrition, truce declared. The russians were based at alexandria. If I recall correctly, captured egyptain pilots admitted that russians were flying, they were apparently quite happy to discover that their russian trainers/volunteers had been shot down as they despised them. apparently the russians treated them with contempt. I don't think any of this is still classified (it was for a number of years)

Rattle_Snake... I should have added smilies after "volunteers". I was using the politically correct terms that the Russians used. Its a good way to lose business, sell them the kit, send in yr "A" team to show how its done and then get shot up yourself. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the vendor - or the product... :) The wallabies will get back up again. if wilko gets arthiritis the poms are buggered... :)

Rattle, I can give you Israeli sites.. :)

Okay, for some reason my last post got screwed up, so I'm going to repost it (admin please delete my last post). Note: All currency mentioned is United States Dollars. Rattle_Snake: I don't particularly care about the contemporary history of the middle east, so let me simply address a few of your more concrete points. "He only thing close to actual aid to europe from the U.S is the MARSHALL plan which was set up to aid reconstruction of europe after the second world war and safe-guard it from communism. The Marshall plan cost America round about 12 billion (9 zeros) dolars. So for europe's 270 million people 12 billion dollars was considered a good enough aid to rebuild infrastructure, roads, hospitals, institutions and all that. Ofcourse it mayb worth noting that 2 billion of these were loans that got repaid in 4 years and the rest were thanks to good old ARAB oil. Compare that to the 100 or so billion dollars and other grants and gifts given to the 6 million people of israel." 1. I'm sorry you aren't schooled in economics, because if you were you'd know this is a fallacy. You are presenting two different amounts of money in (for all intents and purposes) different currencies. Before you compare two monetary values, you should state what currency they're in, and what year of the currency you are using. Adjusting for inflation, the Marshall plan's value in 2002 dollars (the latest figure to measure with) was roughly 96,441,177,300.76 [1,2], a far cry from the twelve billion you mislead us into believing it is. I don't know what the adjusted figures for Israel are, but from the sites you gave I am led to believe they are somewhere between 84 and 134 billion dollars [3]. Now, these figures are definitely debatable, since econometrics is an extremely complex and subjective field. However, since I lack the expertise or knowledge to even begin to knock their numbers, let me simply say that they are in the ballpark with the Marshall plan in total value. However, note that the Marshall plan had a much more dramatic effect on the economy and was a much larger drain on the country, because large amounts of money were donated in single dollops. In the first year alone, the plan cost an absolutely astounding 14.9% of GDP [4]. This was a stratospheric amount of money for the time. The temporary negative economic effects on the US were very high. Israel's total, on the other hand, is much more the effect of accumulation, and, in essence, is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Aid to Israel (using the most generous figure provided), accounts for merely .000851% of the US's cumulative GDP [5]. The fallacy here is comparing a series of small donations spaced out over a long period of time with several very large donations spaced out over a very short period of time. In reality, Israel's aid is barely noticeable against the massive cumulative GDP, while the Marshall plan used up a significant portion of US tax revenue within its timeframe. 2. Arab oil? Explain, please. This money came directly out of the American taxpayers' pocket [6]. "So egypt HARDly receives 10 times as much as israel in aid..." 3. Egypt receives nearly two point one billion dollars a year in aid and loans [7] (I believe it is fixed, by treaty, at 2/3s of the aid of Israel). This is nearly as much as is given to Israel, but it has not accumulated as highly since America has only recently started giving aid to Egypt. 4. I take it you think that American aid and loans to Israel is not in its national interests? If so, please look at the following forum thread. http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum23/HTML/005787.html Footnotes: 1: Calculated with the inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ 2. I took the following dollar values from http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm 1948 expenditures: 5.3 billion is worth 41,076,489,952.56 in 2002 dollars. The rest of the expenditures were worth 7.7 billion, and I calculated them using the median year of (i.e. fair and equitable) 1950. It came out to be 55,364,687,348.20. The total was thus roughly 96,441,177,300.76. 3. http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm 4. The first year cost of the plan was 41076489952.56 USD in 2002 dollars (see #2). The 1948 US GDP was around 275.6B (adjusted, both seasonally and for inflation), documented at http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm Thus the percentage of GDP that the aid was was roughly 14.9%. 5. Cumulative US GDP (1949-2002): 176,113.5B - I added the final quarter GDP numbers for every year from 1949 to 2002, courtesy http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm Cumulative US Aid: (say Israel received 3B a year from 1998-2002) 149,791,507,200 - from both note number three, and from the fact that Israel is given roughly three billion dollars a year. Percent of GDP: ~.000851% - divide cumulative US aid by Cumulative US GDP 6.

Okay... one last time... Note: All currency mentioned is United States Dollars. Rattle_Snake: I don't particularly care about the contemporary history of the middle east, so let me simply address a few of your more concrete points. "He only thing close to actual aid to europe from the U.S is the MARSHALL plan which was set up to aid reconstruction of europe after the second world war and safe-guard it from communism. The Marshall plan cost America round about 12 billion (9 zeros) dolars. So for europe's 270 million people 12 billion dollars was considered a good enough aid to rebuild infrastructure, roads, hospitals, institutions and all that. Ofcourse it mayb worth noting that 2 billion of these were loans that got repaid in 4 years and the rest were thanks to good old ARAB oil. Compare that to the 100 or so billion dollars and other grants and gifts given to the 6 million people of israel." 1. I'm sorry you aren't schooled in economics, because if you were you'd know this is a fallacy. You are presenting two different amounts of money in (for all intents and purposes) different currencies. Before you compare two monetary values, you should state what currency they're in, and what year of the currency you are using. Adjusting for inflation, the Marshall plan's value in 2002 dollars (the latest figure to measure with) was roughly 96,441,177,300.76 [1,2], a far cry from the twelve billion you mislead us into believing it is. I don't know what the adjusted figures for Israel are, but from the sites you gave I am led to believe they are somewhere between 84 and 134 billion dollars [3]. Now, these figures are definitely debatable, since econometrics is an extremely complex and subjective field. However, since I lack the expertise or knowledge to even begin to knock their numbers, let me simply say that they are in the ballpark with the Marshall plan in total value. However, note that the Marshall plan had a much more dramatic effect on the economy and was a much larger drain on the country, because large amounts of money were donated in single dollops. In the first year alone, the plan cost an absolutely astounding 14.9% of GDP [4]. This was a stratospheric amount of money for the time. The temporary negative economic effects on the US were very high. Israel's total, on the other hand, is much more the effect of accumulation, and, in essence, is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Aid to Israel (using the most generous figure provided), accounts for merely .000851% of the US's cumulative GDP [5]. The fallacy here is comparing a series of small donations spaced out over a long period of time with several very large donations spaced out over a very short period of time. In reality, Israel's aid is barely noticeable against the massive cumulative GDP, while the Marshall plan used up a significant portion of US tax revenue within its timeframe. 2. Arab oil? Explain, please. This money came directly out of the American taxpayers' pocket [6]. "So egypt HARDly receives 10 times as much as israel in aid..." 3. Egypt receives nearly two point one billion dollars a year in aid and loans [7] (I believe it is fixed, by treaty, at 2/3s of the aid of Israel). This is nearly as much as is given to Israel, but it has not accumulated as highly since America has only recently started giving aid to Egypt. 4. I take it you think that American aid and loans to Israel is not in its national interests? If so, please look at the following forum thread. http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum23/HTML/005787.html Footnotes: 1: Calculated with the inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ 2. I took the following dollar values from http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm 1948 expenditures: 5.3 billion is worth 41,076,489,952.56 in 2002 dollars. The rest of the expenditures were worth 7.7 billion, and I calculated them using the median year of (i.e. fair and equitable) 1950. It came out to be 55,364,687,348.20. The total was thus roughly 96,441,177,300.76. 3. http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm 4. The first year cost of the plan was 41076489952.56 USD in 2002 dollars (see #2). The 1948 US GDP was around 275.6B (adjusted, both seasonally and for inflation), documented at http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm Thus the percentage of GDP that the aid was was roughly 14.9%. 5. Cumulative US GDP (1949-2002): 176,113.5B - I added the final quarter GDP numbers for every year from 1949 to 2002, courtesy http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm Cumulative US Aid: (say Israel received 3B a year from 1998-2002) 149,791,507,200 - from both note number three, and from the fact that Israel is given roughly three billion dollars a year. Percent of GDP: ~.000851% - divide cumulative US aid by Cumulative US GDP 6. 7. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1998/issue4/jv2n4a1.html

Well, it seems that the admin came and cleaned house, so perhaps my post will show up now (crosses fingers). Note: All currency mentioned is United States Dollars. Rattle_Snake: I don't particularly care about the contemporary history of the middle east, so let me simply address a few of your more concrete points. "He only thing close to actual aid to europe from the U.S is the MARSHALL plan which was set up to aid reconstruction of europe after the second world war and safe-guard it from communism. The Marshall plan cost America round about 12 billion (9 zeros) dolars. So for europe's 270 million people 12 billion dollars was considered a good enough aid to rebuild infrastructure, roads, hospitals, institutions and all that. Ofcourse it mayb worth noting that 2 billion of these were loans that got repaid in 4 years and the rest were thanks to good old ARAB oil. Compare that to the 100 or so billion dollars and other grants and gifts given to the 6 million people of israel." 1. I'm sorry you aren't schooled in economics, because if you were you'd know this is a fallacy. You are presenting two different amounts of money in (for all intents and purposes) different currencies. Before you compare two monetary values, you should state what currency they're in, and what year of the currency you are using. Adjusting for inflation, the Marshall plan's value in 2002 dollars (the latest figure to measure with) was roughly 96,441,177,300.76 [1,2], a far cry from the twelve billion you mislead us into believing it is. I don't know what the adjusted figures for Israel are, but from the sites you gave I am led to believe they are somewhere between 84 and 134 billion dollars [3]. Now, these figures are definitely debatable, since econometrics is an extremely complex and subjective field. However, since I lack the expertise or knowledge to even begin to knock their numbers, let me simply say that they are in the ballpark with the Marshall plan in total value. However, note that the Marshall plan had a much more dramatic effect on the economy and was a much larger drain on the country, because large amounts of money were donated in single dollops. In the first year alone, the plan cost an absolutely astounding 14.9% of GDP [4]. This was a stratospheric amount of money for the time. The temporary negative economic effects on the US were very high. Israel's total, on the other hand, is much more the effect of accumulation, and, in essence, is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Aid to Israel (using the most generous figure provided), accounts for merely .000851% of the US's cumulative GDP [5]. The fallacy here is comparing a series of small donations spaced out over a long period of time with several very large donations spaced out over a very short period of time. In reality, Israel's aid is barely noticeable against the massive cumulative GDP, while the Marshall plan used up a significant portion of US tax revenue within its timeframe. 2. Arab oil? Explain, please. This money came directly out of the American taxpayers' pocket [6]. "So egypt HARDly receives 10 times as much as israel in aid..." 3. Egypt receives nearly two point one billion dollars a year in aid and loans [7] (I believe it is fixed, by treaty, at 2/3s of the aid of Israel). This is nearly as much as is given to Israel, but it has not accumulated as highly since America has only recently started giving aid to Egypt. 4. I take it you think that American aid and loans to Israel is not in its national interests? If so, please look at the following forum thread. http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum23/HTML/005787.html Footnotes: 1: Calculated with the inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ 2. I took the following dollar values from http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm 1948 expenditures: 5.3 billion is worth 41,076,489,952.56 in 2002 dollars. The rest of the expenditures were worth 7.7 billion, and I calculated them using the median year of (i.e. fair and equitable) 1950. It came out to be 55,364,687,348.20. The total was thus roughly 96,441,177,300.76. 3. http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm 4. The first year cost of the plan was 41076489952.56 USD in 2002 dollars (see #2). The 1948 US GDP was around 275.6B (adjusted, both seasonally and for inflation), documented at http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm Thus the percentage of GDP that the aid was was roughly 14.9%. 5. Cumulative US GDP (1949-2002): 176,113.5B - I added the final quarter GDP numbers for every year from 1949 to 2002, courtesy http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GDP.htm Cumulative US Aid: (say Israel received 3B a year from 1998-2002) 149,791,507,200 - from both note number three, and from the fact that Israel is given roughly three billion dollars a year. Percent of GDP: ~.000851% - divide cumulative US aid by Cumulative US GDP 6.

Again, huh? The Brits were involved? When?

IAF Press Release to AP. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of "proof", evidence is usually taken from both sides...unless of course you have prejudged!