Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 01/12/2007 View Thu 01/11/2007 View Wed 01/10/2007 View Tue 01/09/2007 View Mon 01/08/2007 View Sun 01/07/2007 View Sat 01/06/2007
1
2007-01-12 Europe
US sends warplanes to Turkey's Incirlik military base
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2007-01-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Hmmm... I am left pondering the purpose of bringing an AWACS.
Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-12 00:15||   2007-01-12 00:15|| Front Page Top

#2 Mike N, exercises. They can say no more.
Posted by twobyfour 2007-01-12 01:44||   2007-01-12 01:44|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 06:30|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 06:43|| Front Page Top

#5 plz plz Lord let the bombs missles and shells be on target
Posted by RD 2007-01-12 06:57||   2007-01-12 06:57|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 07:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 07:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 08:32|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 08:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Damascus, baby!
Posted by john">john  2007-01-12 09:03|| http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/]">[http://john-smokegetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com/]  2007-01-12 09:03|| Front Page Top

#11 Soooo... what would be the direct flight path from northern Israel to, say, Iran?
Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-12 09:23||   2007-01-12 09:23|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 11:00|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 16:19|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 17:19|| Front Page Top

#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">FOTSGreg  2007-01-12 18:45|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com]  2007-01-12 18:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 19:28|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 20:04|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 21:50|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G  2007-01-12 21:54||   2007-01-12 21:54|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-01-12 22:14|| Front Page Top

23:48 Mike N.
23:41 newc
23:40 Shieldwolf
23:32 newc
23:05 Frank G
23:01 trailing wife
23:00 Mike N.
22:49 trailing wife
22:40 Frank G
22:22 Procopius2k
22:18 Mark Z
22:17 USN, ret.
22:14 Mike N.
22:11 Procopius2k
22:10 USN, ret.
22:04 DarthVader
21:54 Frank G
21:53 Alaska Paul
21:52 3dc
21:50 USN, ret.
21:23 Pappy
21:20 djh_usmc
21:13 bruce
20:59 Anguper Hupomosing9418









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com