Will WWIII start March 2006?
Jack Sarfatti
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@pacbell.net>
Date: December 5, 2005 10:57:53 PM PST
To: Kim Burrafato <len...@stardrive.org>
Subject: Fwd: Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
Memorandum for the Record
WWIII in March 2006?
Get ready. March 2006 is Point of No Return though it may take Iran
another 2 years to get an operational nuke to hit Tel Aviv with. I
discussed this with .... at lunch today before his show. He was already
aware of all this. He also had Congressman ... on. ... also mentioned
... on radio today in connection with ...
Begin forwarded message:
From: ...
Date: December 5, 2005 6:47:53 PM PST
To: sarf...@pacbell.net
Subject: Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
Hi Jack,
Israel is fully capable of taking care of the Iranian nuclear problem.
My opinion is that they will stage a surgical strike against the nuclear
facilities in Iran with deep penetrating nukes. Remember when they took
out Saddam's nuclear breeder reactors in Baghdad? You might want to pass
the following info on to ..... The organization that wrote this article
has a leftist slant so they made snide remarks about the mil-industrial
complex, etc. The info on the military hardware is correct though.
...
From: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a
possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart air
launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article9.html
The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to
address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception
of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful]
BLU-113 bunker buster ":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm
"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this
increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or
without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr
using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would
be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and
communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS
and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver
tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the
"conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the
conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for
civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel
Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines
equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now
aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war,
but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it
could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the
borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network,
Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air
strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably
extend to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level
of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage an
effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of
former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into
that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is
seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4
December 2004).
Iran's Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran
has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear
sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes
difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20
April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach
targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted
high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran
also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the
Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2,
SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for
Strategic Studies).
The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the
next stage of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the
interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street
financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70%
of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of
the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11
%) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less
than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for
Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part
of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US
Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to
invade both Iraq and Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National
Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central
Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy
of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as
those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the
region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to
maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either
Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and
threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS,
is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region -
uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy
, emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and
Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries,
in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former
Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite
its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central
role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation
agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally
involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November
2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has
already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for
June.(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the
attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel
are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by
June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the
attack has not been made.
Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should
nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample
evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent
months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties
involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials
between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has
occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the
international level with a view to securing areas of military
cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation
directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran
has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat
to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which
are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military
pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation
to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the
Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia,
Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework,
known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel.
The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and
"anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the
Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which
have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November
2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with
NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and
US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of
Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and
appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli
history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri
Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is
considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right
man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial
operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz
is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's
appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief
of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such
a scenario."
March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up
talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint
NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation
ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's
deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly
Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation
is that Israel is under attack:
"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who
attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the
possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore,
Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the
increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's
links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive
military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria,
Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need,
could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies,
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates
NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of
self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also
involved in the process of military consultations relating to the
planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral
military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the
likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from
Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial
authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on
Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop
Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military
exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to
participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli
military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to
events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in
implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic
endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling
Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military
operation against that country."
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment
of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military
bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a
role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with
the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several
of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.
The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term
objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and
economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to
ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of
establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure
US influence in the Caspian region:
"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task
forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in
emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and
pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States
($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European
Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region.
Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in
Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President
Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which
occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier.
Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation
group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia.
Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush
at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More
significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high
level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official
visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft
missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry.
Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely
visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding
its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of
Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough
enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment
of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest
that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior
to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
(See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). ( In
February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to
the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28
Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US
Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced
the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed
Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning
to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb
Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance
control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a
special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep
underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the
World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive
explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15
aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by
his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military
officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense
projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile
Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite,
are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes.
Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a
major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel
and the US.
Iran Surrounded
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan,
Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see
Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of
NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation
agreements with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click Map to enlarge)
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in
which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics,
could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian
based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country,
Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out
approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries...
Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit
to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security
Russia, 12 April 2005).
Concluding remarks:
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which
is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear
facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military
roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's
participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war
throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the
Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the
proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See
text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot
be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear
weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional
bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in
conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the
explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear
threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the
existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan,
Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea
basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and
Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement
inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched
military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war
theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and
could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East
region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently,
involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure
of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader
conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and
Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea
basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes
on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major
divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European
partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would
be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely
hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and
Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria
and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to
retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US
military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin,
eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian
Federation.
TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities With between 200 and 500
thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has
quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and
may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of
its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the
U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel
nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized
as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of
200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little
doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated,
largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the
Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear
bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast
effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people
while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles
and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the
Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all
other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any
conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let
alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region,
often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action
strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction
directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several
salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic
driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to
each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the
U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for
developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting
and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear
strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in
increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and
negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel
would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace
agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community
confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that
there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a
fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
============================================
Begin forwarded message:
From:...
Date: December 5, 2005 6:48:41 PM PST
To: sarf...@pacbell.net
Subject: Israel Air Force F-16I Soufa
Israel Air Force F-16I Soufa
Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin
The F-16I is based on an advanced F-16 Block 52 aircraft. The Israeli
version has integrated several new systems, developed and produced in
Israel, required by the IAF, to maintain and enhance its operational
capability. Despite the inclusion of many additional systems, the empty
weight of the aircraft was maintained at the level of current Israeli
Block 40 (Barak) F-16s. The "diet" included the use of lightweight
materials, as well as the use of advanced avionics that offer
considerable saving in weight and space.
The Sufa version of the F-16 Block 52 has a distinctive dorsal avionics
compartment that accommodates all of the systems of the single-seat
model as well as some special mission equipment and additional
chaff/flare dispensers. The Israeli model is powered by the Pratt
&Whitney F110-PW-229 Increased Performance Engine (IPE) engine develops
over 29,000 lbs of thrust but weighs only 3,740 lbs. It incorporates
modern turbine materials, cooling management techniques, compressor
aerodynamics and electronic controls – many of them derived from F-119
and F-135 engines used in the new F-22 Raptor and JSF. The Advanced
Block 52 aircraft use the Normal Shock Inlet (also known as the small
mouth inlet).
Cockpit:
The Israeli F-16I cockpit features a helmet-mounted cueing system, color
multifunction displays and recording equipment, cockpit lighting and
external strip lighting compatible with night vision goggles, and
large-capacity data transfer sets. Cockpit displays are driven by the
Integrated color display processor (ICDP) developed by Elbit Systems,
which drives the six multifunction color liquid crystal displays with
484x484 pixel resolution, built by Astronautics CA. HUDs are delivered
by BAE Systems (initial 18-25) and El-OP (77-84). For the first time,
the company embedded a digital map system and digital terrain flight
algorithms into the ICDP computer. Such integration has saved
considerable weight, wiring and logistical and technical support,
previously required for separate systems. The Inertial Terrain Aided
(RITA) system, developed by RAFAEL, uses proprietary algorithms based on
accurate terrain reference navigation that improve low-level flight
safety, and enable terrain following flight in all weather conditions,
day or night and improve flight safety by avoiding ground collision. The
aircraft is also equipped with a LANTIRN navigation pod, which enables
automatic terrain following flight, utilizing a combination of forward
looking imager and TF radar. This system enables the both crew members
to fly safely at low altitude, as they were flying on "autopilot", and
concentrate on the employment of mission system and weapons. The fully
missionized rear cockpit is used for navigation and Weapon Systems
Operation (WSO).
Each cockpit has three displays and Head Up Display (HUD). Color coding
is designed to match specific information, in different operational
modes, to emphasize the information most important at every phase of the
mission. All cockpit lighting, including the color displays, are
designed to work with night vision systems. The tandem cockpit utilizes
two fully functional positions for the pilot and weapon systems operator
and navigator, both are equipped with the DASH-IV helmet mounted display
and sight, developed by VCI Inc, a Rockwell-Collins / Elbit Systems
Joint Venture which is also developing the new JHMCS helmets for the
USAF and US Navy. The helmet display also provides critical flight and
target information to the pilot — similar to a head-up display, but in
any direction the pilot looks. DASH IV is a fourth generation of the
DASH system, of which 500 are already in service. The new system offers
several advantages compared to previous models, such the addition of a
video camera that can record the pilot's view to the mission debriefing
system, more accurate line-of-sight tracking, etc. The system offers
improved tracking accuracy and a miniature helmet mounted video camera
that records the pilot's line of sight view.
Core Avionics Systems
Another improvement over previous F-16 versions was introduced in the
core avionics, which utilizes the General Avionics Computer (GAC)
delivered by EFW, a division of Elbit Systems. This computer benefits
from technology advances including increased processing speeds and
memory capacity, by the using off-the-shelf technology, which improves
supportability. The aircraft is equipped with a high capacity,
ultra-fast network based on a fiber-channel backbone, which links all
avionics modules, external stores and sensors into a unified, high
capacity multi-channel network. Utilizing a high capacity (1 gigabyte)
switch, the FiberChannel runs data streams over five channels with
standards based protocols such as 1553 and 1790.
The navigation equipment is based on a 7 channel GPS and ring-laser
Inertial Navigation System (INS), an integration of systems produced by
Honeywell, Raytheon and General Dynamics. The TACAN is provided by
Rockwell, which also provides the ARC-217 HF radio. BAE Systems is
providing the ILS system and an advanced IFF transponder/interrogator.
which improves the operation of the aircraft beyond visual range, and
enable safe employment of long range A/A missiles. The communications
equipment is based on an integrated voice/data system, that incorporates
RAFAEL's Green Radio, a localized and improved version of the Rockwell
Collins ARC-210 VHF/UHF radio, equipped with a data modem, and an
advanced data-link system, produced by IAI/MLM. These classified systems
are believed to be more advanced to Link 16, offer integrated, secured
and jam-resistant communications was designed to provide instantaneous
high quality, high capacity communication between surface and air elements.
The aircraft is also equipped with an advanced data recorder, Advanced
Data Transfer Equipment / Digital Video Recording (ADTE/DVR) developed
and produced by Smiths Aerospace. The system uses a 15 gigabyte memory
cartridge to store the entire flight records. The system records and
time-stamps three video and databus channels, including video (HUD,
helmet view, sensor view etc), audio (radio, intercom), avionics and
sensor data (radar, digital map and flight data systems.) 3 digital
video channels. A special mission debriefing system (SIMNET), designed
by RADA is used to extract the data and present it for post mission
debriefing and analysis.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/f/f-16I-details.htm
Math Freak
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@pacbell.net>
> Date: December 5, 2005 10:57:53 PM PST
> To: Kim Burrafato <len...@stardrive.org>
> Subject: Fwd: Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
>
> Memorandum for the Record
>
> WWIII in March 2006?
>
> Get ready. March 2006 is Point of No Return though it may take Iran
> another 2 years to get an operational nuke to hit Tel Aviv with. I
> discussed this with .... at lunch today before his show. He was already
Israeli poetry. Go to hell with it.
--
"shotor khAbide'ash ham boland tar az khare
istAdeh ast."
Mark Fergerson
Just a response to some "Iranian poetry":
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
Back when you posted under the name Maleki you'd often complain
that Americans (or Westerners [whatever that means] in general) have
a "cartoon view" of reality. Look who's talking:
http://www.irancartoon.com/history/history.htm
OTOH we have this:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1805
in which a Turkish "apologist" offers the interpretation that
Ahmedinejad was merely quoting Khomeini rather than expressing an
idea original with him (Ahmedinejad).
Personally, I'm very tired of cartoonists and politicians lamely
parroting party lines. Original thought anywhere is rare and usually
suppressed; perhaps that's because it can't be compressed into cartoons.
Mark L. Fergerson
mark...@yahoo.com
> Date: December 5, 2005 10:57:53 PM PST
> To: Kim Burrafato <len...@stardrive.org>
> Subject: Fwd: Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
>
> Memorandum for the Record
>
> WWIII in March 2006?
>
> Get ready. March 2006 is Point of No Return though it may take Iran
> another 2 years to get an operational nuke to hit Tel Aviv with.
First of all, as far as Iran and Israel goes, to repeat what has been
said before:
Dated 2004 September 8; talk.politics.misc
"Israel and Palestine are mixed up together like black and white in
marble stone. You can't nuke Israel without nuking Palestine and
slaughtering the people there as well. Nukes don't know Gerrymandering.
They're both nuke-proof against each other's sides and advocates. They
got each other as human shields. Only a 3rd alliance or power,
adversary to BOTH Israel and Palestine can ever target either (and
therefore: both)."
The people who are trying to push an agenda with this flimsy pretext
apparently are too logic-impaired to notice this very obvious and basic
incongruity before coming up with crackpot conspiracy notions like
this. At least have the sense to hire a continuity editor before
writing fiction.
Second, the Third World War is already gone and past. It was the war
whose battles were fought in Zaire, Ethiopia and Somalia, Afghanistan,
Cuba, Malaysia, Indo-China, China, Berlin, Korea, Central America,
Peru, etc. over a period of nearly 50 years; fought primarily as a war
of attrition (with active firefights in the above arenas) which brought
one of its major combatants into bankruptcy at its end and the other,
too, (with a 10-15 year lag).
Not many people are aware of the full extent of Vietnamese theatre of
the War. "Vietnam" was not a war, but just a battle in this war, and
was fought not just in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, but also involved
insurgencies in Malaysia and Thailand concurrently with these fights
(and at earlier times in Indonesia and India when the Chinese invaded
India before it was put to a stop with the placement of an American
tripwire force there in India), and had both the active participation
in (one of those rare occasions after 1960 they worked together) of
both the Soviets and Chinese.
The alliances of the Pro-Soviet and Pro-American camps were extensive
and (at least in the case of China, who -- as is their usual nature --
tried to have it both ways) shifting over time.
The current war is already a world war: World War IV. Just because
something doesn't have nukes in it (yet) doesn't make it not a world
war.