| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| US sends warplanes to Turkey's Incirlik military base |
| 2007-01-12 |
| (KUNA) -- U.S. F-16 jet-fighters arrived Thursday in Incirlik Air base in southern Turkish city of Adana after, the first time in three years. According to Local Cihan News Agency, at least 16 F-16 jets joined by early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes landed here at Incirlik coming from an American base in Germany. An official at the U.S. embassy in Ankara announced that the planes arrived here for purpose of conducting exercises with the Turkish military in line with agreements between the two states. Incirlik base was used as a northern recon base for American forces during the Iraqi war in 2003 and since then the base served as a logistic backup for the U.S. army. Namik Tan, spokesman for the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also confirmed that the U.S. planes arrived for exercises' purposes. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #20 Frank, I think you're correct. The F-15s that Israel equipped with the extra fuel tanks are more than capable of a non stop to Iran. And back if I remember correctly. Think I read it in a Jpost article. . |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-12 22:14 |
| #19 IIRC, it was commented here the Israelis have F-15's (E?) capable of making it one-way and stopping for fuel on the way back ahhhh yes |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-12 21:54 |
| #18 Aia to air will not likely be a problem if Iran is the target; they have so few operational fighters (of any flavor) that the good guys would only need a few figthers to escort any F-16s configured as bombers, and the B-1s would be in and out so fast that thee would most likely not be time to scramble any sort of meaningful defense. Of course that doesn't include any B-2s or carrier assets that would overwhelm anything Dinnerjacket could launch. If Syria is the target, pretty much the same scenario, I would think. Maybe a bit less NAVAIR, unless there is a CVBG in the Med. I am not aware of one, please correct as necessary. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-01-12 21:50 |
| #17 This seems like way too much material for a bluff. Parts of the 82nd are in Iraq too on top of what's been discussed already in this thread. I would think that if anything was in the works, the 82nd would be there. Anybody know where the 101st is, or the 4th? Also, I think the Israelis have add on fuel tanks for the F-16 that bring its range to something like 700. Crap for air to air for sure, but would extend its range as a light bomber. Would that Tehran into range for the F-16's? I don't have an atlas handy. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-12 20:04 |
| #16 Seems like the Turks have no objections to our use of their air space for upcoming operations. I see a chess board with the pieces all in place for a major offensive. What else could it be ? A bluff ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-12 19:28 |
| #15 Non-combat range for the F-16 is 3200 miles (4800 km). As anonymoose said combat radius is 340 miles (550 km). Incirlik to Baghdad should be well within this range. From there (or anywhere else in Iraq) to Kharg Island or Damascus and other points east or west should be relatively easy. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-01-12 18:45 |
| #14 Noteworthy: The combat radius of F-16s is about 350 miles. Incirlik is located near Adana on the Mediterranean. This would place it far outside typical un-refueled range from Iran. However, it would fully encompass Syria. In all the hubbub about Iran, perhaps we are neglecting a major component of the game here. That is, if the US did a quick overthrow of Syria, it would severely muck up a lot of Iran's territorial ambitions. It would crush Hizbollah and soothe all of the Sunni nations in the region. In the short term, this would severely undermine Iran, and be a humiliating defeat. Just saying. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-01-12 17:19 |
| #13 Chessboard is filling up. No need for Awacs now unless local air control/dominance is required to suppress enemy flights. Haven't checked air mileage to Iran from here. F-16's probably can't make non-stop runs from here without air refueling, but same is true for any Israeli F-16's. This would also be good spot to launch tankers from. Those carrier groups are also for defensive supression and control of shipping lanes for tankers. Offense will come from..well, why would B-1's be flying routes deep into the sandbox now ? Looks like GW is going to go all in. This poker game is going to end soon. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2007-01-12 16:19 |
| #12 add that to reports that B-1 Lancers have been used recently in Iraq. Other than practice runs for something why would they need B1 in Iraq for troop support when more than enough local based aircraft onsite. Add it all up and its either a hell of a message or positioning for a real "message" |
| Posted by: BobK 2007-01-12 11:00 |
| #11 Soooo... what would be the direct flight path from northern Israel to, say, Iran? |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-01-12 09:23 |
| #10 Damascus, baby! |
| Posted by: john 2007-01-12 09:03 |
| #9 I don't suppose the Turks are as strongly opposed to an Iran conflict as they were to a Sunni conflict with Saddam. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-01-12 08:37 |
| #8 So what kind of exercises are these... Are they training exercises or military? Blackvenom-2001 |
| Posted by: Blackvenom-2001 2007-01-12 08:32 |
| #7 I see these developments more as political chess than 'massing for attack' , although that is an secondary objective . More of a consolidation move , shoring up allied defences and gearing up for the impending iraqi/us v militia/iran showdown . Would be interesting to find out what Israel are doing at the moment . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2007-01-12 07:45 |
| #6 We're "massing for attack". Muzzies arent the only ones that can play the game you know. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-01-12 07:18 |
| #5 plz plz Lord let the bombs missles and shells be on target |
| Posted by: RD 2007-01-12 06:57 |
| #4 diplo pressure followed through with high visibility military movements/deployemnts i.e. patriot defences for friendlies , and an incoming infux of birds with AWACS too , along with ship movements .. *ponder* gotta love the drama , someones bowel movements in that region are prolly beginning to loosen |
| Posted by: MacNails 2007-01-12 06:43 |
| #3 ...What has me wondering is why anyone needs to conduct an exercise in a war zone. The last time I heard of something like that was just after Desert Storm when the deployed commander of the 4 FW from Seymour Johnson AFB decided to have an exercise to keep his guys on their toes and started downloading and uploading planes that were supposed to be on alert. Needless to say, while he has four airplanes in various states of readiness, the word comes down to launch them for real. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-12 06:30 |
| #2 Mike N, exercises. They can say no more. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-01-12 01:44 |
| #1 Hmmm... I am left pondering the purpose of bringing an AWACS. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-12 00:15 |