OT... Iceland invites bear to drop by

Bear Bomber that is!
If you want to see just how far our stock (literally and figuratively)
has sunk in the world, just read this little item:
http://www.barentsobserver.com/russi...408-58932.html
We should have seen this coming after that Bjork "Human Behavior" video
with her as a cosmonaut up on the Moon.
As to why the Russians didn't snap at this offer immediately is beyond me.
That would give their naval patrol aircraft a perfect base for
monitoring the whole North Atlantic.

Pat

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
Bear Bomber that is!
If you want to see just how far our stock (literally and figuratively)
has sunk in the world, just read this little item:
http://www.barentsobserver.com/russi...408-58932.html
We should have seen this coming after that Bjork "Human Behavior" video
with her as a cosmonaut up on the Moon.

Probably has more to do with Britian freezing Icelandic assets in the
UK and them no longer getting the influx of cash from US Air Force
people at Keflavik.

From what little I've read, Iceland is very much up the creek in the
current money crisis.

As to why the Russians didn't snap at this offer immediately is
beyond me. That would give their naval patrol aircraft a perfect
base for monitoring the whole North Atlantic.

Or perhaps tap into SOSUS?

At the same time though, if things were ever to get "warm" that would
be a very lonely place for the aircrews to be...

rick jones
--
the road to hell is paved with business decisions...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

I often think it'd be good for the RAAF to get something to replace
the F-111 with. The USA has nothing comparable, why not look elsewhere?

Neil Gerace wrote:
:
:I often think it'd be good for the RAAF to get something to replace
:the F-111 with. The USA has nothing comparable, why not look elsewhere?
:

The Bear isn't a suitable replacement for the 'Varks. If you think it
is, you could just buy P-6s.

--
"Yet here I sit, years of evildoing under my belt, and still a
happy camper."
-- Alan Shore, "Boston Legal"

On Nov 18, 3:14*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The Bear isn't a suitable replacement for the 'Varks.

No, I don't think I said it was

Neil Gerace wrote:
I often think it'd be good for the RAAF to get something to replace
the F-111 with. The USA has nothing comparable, why not look elsewhere?


How about F-15E strike eagles?
Expensive, but very capable and way superior to the F-111 in just about
every way.
If Australia can't foot the bill for those, that would leave either
Su-30s or Su-32s as the alternatives.
The Su-30 is reasonably enough priced that many smaller countries have
bought them, and has both interceptor and attack capabilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

Pat

Neil Gerace wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:14 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:


The Bear isn't a suitable replacement for the 'Varks.


No, I don't think I said it was


One coming in at around 100' altitude would be a mighty impressive sight
though. :-D
The ultra-low-altitude method of approach to a target to avoid detection
may be getting obsolete though... it didn't work at all well for British
aircraft in the First Gulf War, whose losses were considerably higher
than US aircraft in proportion to number fielded and sorties flown, as
the flat terrain didn't give them much ground cover to hide from radar
behind.
Since one of the main RAAF missions for the F-111 is patrolling the seas
around Australia, it might also suffer high attrition if it flies low
over a flat surface like the ocean.
Of course inland operations at low altitude are fairly safe as long as
one remembers to pull up to avoid hitting Ayers Rock or high-jumping
kangaroos.
I wonder if any Australian aircraft has ever been destroyed by "kangaroo
strike"? :-\

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Neil Gerace wrote:
I often think it'd be good for the RAAF to get something to replace
the F-111 with. The USA has nothing comparable, why not look elsewhere?


How about F-15E strike eagles?

looks up the F-15E
They sound good. I'll speak to the minister next week :-)


Expensive, but very capable and way superior to the F-111 in just about
every way.

Except ferry range, this is somehow important to us ..

If Australia can't foot the bill for those, that would leave either
Su-30s or Su-32s as the alternatives.
The Su-30 is reasonably enough priced that many smaller countries have
bought them, and has both interceptor and attack capabilities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

again a good replacement, though what would I know :-)

Neil Gerace wrote:

:On Nov 18, 3:14*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: The Bear isn't a suitable replacement for the 'Varks.
:
:No, I don't think I said it was
:

So just what are you suggesting?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:
:Neil Gerace wrote:
: I often think it'd be good for the RAAF to get something to replace
: the F-111 with. The USA has nothing comparable, why not look elsewhere?
:
:
:How about F-15E strike eagles?
:Expensive, but very capable and way superior to the F-111 in just about
:every way.
:If Australia can't foot the bill for those, that would leave either
:Su-30s or Su-32s as the alternatives.
:The Su-30 is reasonably enough priced that many smaller countries have
:bought them, and has both interceptor and attack capabilities:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
:

You missed one (which is apparently what they're actually using to
replace them); F/A-18E/F.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney