PDA

View Full Version : Israeli Aircraft Carrier



2RHPZ
07-07-2004, 12:12 PM
From the current "Flight International" #25/2004:

Controversy has erupted within the Israeli defence establishment over a new navy proposal to acquire a large landing craft/aircraft carrier type of ship configured for joint long-range operations. The Israeli navy plan marks a total shift from the service's earlier intention to purchase new corvettes equipped with Aegis air defence radars.

The navy's new plan calls for the construction of a vessel with a displacement of around 13,000t, capable of carrying a squadron of attack helicopters and unmanned air vehicles. Additional loads for the ship would include ground troops and armoured vehicles.

However, the navy's proposed ship is also planned to be able to deploy the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter. The Israeli air force has expressed its intention to purchase the conventional take-off and landing F-35A, with Israel a security co-operation participant in the system development and demonstration phase of the JSF project. The country has not previously shown interest in the STOVL version of the aircraft.

The Israeli navy's expeditionary plan is based on an assumption that future combat scenarios will involve operations against so-called "second tier" countries, such as Iran. Israel's air force already operates extended-range strike aircraft and inflight refuelling tankers for operations beyond its national borders.

The command of the Israeli Defence Forces is scheduled to decide by the end of next month on several of its major defence procurement programmes, including which type of new ships should be acquired for the navy.

OldRecon
07-07-2004, 12:31 PM
Sounds like a severe bout of megalomania on the part of the Israeli navy if you ask me.
How on earth could an Israeli aircraft carrier be in a better position than israel itself with regards to air element strikes against Iran or Iraq?
Hardly doubt if the Egyptians would let such a carrier pass through the Suez canal in order to attack one of their Arab brethrens, which leaves the option of passing round Africa through Gibraltar before even reaching the Hormuz.
And as for the numbers of carriers to be really effective you would need a minimum of 2, as having only one carrier is more of a liability as a high profile target than an asset.

oldsoak
07-07-2004, 03:12 PM
One train of thought goes like this - With the ship would come gucci C3 gear and the ability to act as a war room for the Israeli cabinet should the need arise. Saddam showed what shape the next war might take, albeit ineffectively. Next time around things might be a bit more dire and this gives you the ability to run a war from someplace other than an underground bunker. Plus it can make Entebbe type raids a little easier to do if you can get support closer to the action.

Flagg
07-07-2004, 08:31 PM
One train of thought goes like this - With the ship would come gucci C3 gear and the ability to act as a war room for the Israeli cabinet should the need arise. Saddam showed what shape the next war might take, albeit ineffectively. Next time around things might be a bit more dire and this gives you the ability to run a war from someplace other than an underground bunker. Plus it can make Entebbe type raids a little easier to do if you can get support closer to the action.

I could see the desire to provide a mobile war room......but I would think an IAF C3I platform would be configured to fulfill that role, in my opinion...as well as the usual underground protected bunkers.

The way I'm thinking is that anything that occurs in North Africa, Israel is capable of handling the air side with safe aerial refuelling and already possesses the capability of delivering small numbers of personnel that far(based on just publically disclosed actions since the 1980's).

I'm assuming the "need" expressed is to better support possible actions against Iran,Pakistan, etc where aerial refuelling of air elements and direct delivery/recovery of ground personnel is much more challenging.

I would think a vessel as described with it's "protection party" of missile boats would present a "fish in a barrel" risk when deploying out of the Red Sea.

I would also think that any justified action Israel needed to take against distant threats would include covert/low key assistance along the lines that Kenya provided with the Entebbe raid.

I'm wondering if this "need" is a result of growing concern over how to counter Iran's nuclear development?

Maybe Israel's ever growing ties with nations such as Turkey, India, and other regional border nations will go some way to finding a less expensive solution.

martinexsquaddie
07-08-2004, 04:52 AM
its part of the zionest plan to invade holland
they want your tulips rofl
its just looks like a big target otherwise. unless israel wants to get into bothering other countrys business .
In the event of peace breaking out in the middle east I vote for the lords resistance army in Uganda to be the first stop for the IDFs world victory tour :lol:

oldsoak
07-08-2004, 06:11 AM
One train of thought goes like this - With the ship would come gucci C3 gear and the ability to act as a war room for the Israeli cabinet should the need arise. Saddam showed what shape the next war might take, albeit ineffectively. Next time around things might be a bit more dire and this gives you the ability to run a war from someplace other than an underground bunker. Plus it can make Entebbe type raids a little easier to do if you can get support closer to the action.

I could see the desire to provide a mobile war room......but I would think an IAF C3I platform would be configured to fulfill that role, in my opinion...as well as the usual underground protected bunkers.

The way I'm thinking is that anything that occurs in North Africa, Israel is capable of handling the air side with safe aerial refuelling and already possesses the capability of delivering small numbers of personnel that far(based on just publically disclosed actions since the 1980's).

I'm assuming the "need" expressed is to better support possible actions against Iran,Pakistan, etc where aerial refuelling of air elements and direct delivery/recovery of ground personnel is much more challenging.

I would think a vessel as described with it's "protection party" of missile boats would present a "fish in a barrel" risk when deploying out of the Red Sea.

I would also think that any justified action Israel needed to take against distant threats would include covert/low key assistance along the lines that Kenya provided with the Entebbe raid.

I'm wondering if this "need" is a result of growing concern over how to counter Iran's nuclear development?

Maybe Israel's ever growing ties with nations such as Turkey, India, and other regional border nations will go some way to finding a less expensive solution.

Fair one - hope it never ever comes to seeing our theories put into pracrice ! In a country as small as Israel, how long can secret bases remain secret ? Assuming that technology marches on for the Arabs as much as the Israelis, how long before the rest of the neighbourhood aquires long range pgm's, bm's and all that unfriendly gear plus nukes ? If they gain a first strike capability and theres a popular move to "do something" about Israel/Palestine the Israelis may find their ability to retaliate gone in the first few moments. A ship at sea gives them the ability to strike back and run the war from outside Israels borders - probably the Med rather than the Red sea plus it could probably operate under the protection of US fleet vessels. It also helps if they end up as Billy-no-mates and there's another hostage crisis where you may need a sizeable force to rescue hostahes and get them out with the carrier providing support. What do you reckon ? - apart from the fact I cant spell :)

Flagg
07-08-2004, 07:30 AM
Fair one - hope it never ever comes to seeing our theories put into pracrice ! In a country as small as Israel, how long can secret bases remain secret ? Assuming that technology marches on for the Arabs as much as the Israelis, how long before the rest of the neighbourhood aquires long range pgm's, bm's and all that unfriendly gear plus nukes ? If they gain a first strike capability and theres a popular move to "do something" about Israel/Palestine the Israelis may find their ability to retaliate gone in the first few moments. A ship at sea gives them the ability to strike back and run the war from outside Israels borders - probably the Med rather than the Red sea plus it could probably operate under the protection of US fleet vessels. It also helps if they end up as Billy-no-mates and there's another hostage crisis where you may need a sizeable force to rescue hostahes and get them out with the carrier providing support. What do you reckon ? - apart from the fact I cant spell

I believe Israel already possesses a viable triad:

1.) Deep strike IAF F15I and the F16I being introduced
2.) Jericho II
3.) 3 Dolphin subs, ensuring 1 on station 24/7/365

Even if Israel got turned into a parking lot in a billion to one shot.....that sub would ensure whichever nation(s) attacked would suffer the same fate

That's why they were built.....

I could see Israelis concerned that if they were left friendless they may require the inherent capability to extend their reach, but I would think that as long as action is justifiable, support would be found either overtly or covertly via the US, Israeli trade partners, or a combination of the two and the use of sufficient economic/political leverage.

My .02 cents says it's a completely unneccessary and uneconomical endeavour.....the money it would cost to build and maintain such a capability ON TOP of Israel maintaining a comprehensive nuclear triad and ballistic missile defense system would suck up way too much of the IDF defense budget.

IDFM203
07-10-2004, 06:01 PM
Maybe Israel's ever growing ties with nations such as Turkey, India, and other regional border nations will go some way to finding a less expensive solution.Well that’s just the thing.....its not ever growing ties with Turkey, in fact recently its ever decreasing ties and well who’s knows if it will be soon completely cut off.........the same for India (though its not decreasing like it is with Turkey), its ok now, but based on past experience, we cant afford to rely on it staying the same.


As for this aircraft carrier, well I can defiantly see a need for it, though is it a urgent critical need right now? Maybe or maybe not, however there is a ultimate need for a “base” closer to where we might be conducting some future actions for indeed our threats are from places that is hard to reach conventnalay with what we have right now, and well this can bring us there.

I read what you wrote on the F15;’s the Jericho’s and whatnot, but I still don’t see how that can compare with a base on the sea that is right by the action, as what a aircraft carrier provides.


I could see Israelis concerned that if they were left friendless they may require the inherent capability to extend their reach, but I would think that as long as action is justifiable, support would be found either overtly or covertly via the US, Israeli trade partners, or a combination of the two and the use of sufficient economic/political leverage This brings me to the other reason for our need to have this, for no, we cannot ever rely on any support to be there, now will it be, maybe and I am not saying that it wont, but to rely on is not something we can ever rely on ever again, I mean just look at my discussion in that other Iranian thread, where indeed even there it shows how we cant rely on outside support, even from the U.S. and as such, this can help us defend ourselves better.




Anyway I do agree with you on the money aspect and indeed I cant see how we will be able to pay for it (even with the U.S. “aid”), but lets wait and see what is the final ruling on if we will get this are not (and what will be cut if we do decide to get this ;) ).


Shalom :D

Flagg
07-10-2004, 07:09 PM
Well that’s just the thing.....its not ever growing ties with Turkey, in fact recently its ever decreasing ties and well who’s knows if it will be soon completely cut off.........the same for India (though its not decreasing like it is with Turkey), its ok now, but based on past experience, we cant afford to rely on it staying the same.

Well, I hope the relationship between Israel and Turkey develops in a positive way in the future......as I thought it showed tremendous mutual potential, besides just the fundamental "co-existence" issue.

A recent report in Business Week led me to believe that mutual trade between Israel and India that began with security products and services has blossomed to include other trade sectors.

I would think 3 relatively reasonable and secular nations like Israel, Turkey, and India would see the wisdom in developing extremely strong ties as the three nations totally dominate the region both militarily and economically.....under the right circumstances they could dominate politically as well.

If recent events have damaged ties between Israel and Turkey I hope they are just "window dressing" to satisfy the ignorant......Turkey's military has always exerted great influence over internal politics and it's my understanding that is where some of the strongest ties exist between Israel and Turkey.

There is too much to gain or lose economically for there NOT to be strong ties between Israel and the other two nations as their economic strengths and weaknesses complement each other well.


As for this aircraft carrier, well I can defiantly see a need for it, though is it a urgent critical need right now? Maybe or maybe not, however there is a ultimate need for a “base” closer to where we might be conducting some future actions for indeed our threats are from places that is hard to reach conventnalay with what we have right now, and well this can bring us there.

I read what you wrote on the F15;’s the Jericho’s and whatnot, but I still don’t see how that can compare with a base on the sea that is right by the action, as what a aircraft carrier provides.

Unfortunately, if Israel were ever in a situation where it COULDN'T rely on friends overtly or covertly(as I mentioned previously the Entebbe/Kenya example) it's carrier would be highly vulnerable on it's way to the AO for many reasons, but particularly due to geography.

And because of that.......I think if Israel does go down this track it's going to be an incredibly difficult and expensive endeavour.


This brings me to the other reason for our need to have this, for no, we cannot ever rely on any support to be there, now will it be, maybe and I am not saying that it wont, but to rely on is not something we can ever rely on ever again, I mean just look at my discussion in that other Iranian thread, where indeed even there it shows how we cant rely on outside support, even from the U.S. and as such, this can help us defend ourselves better.

I try to understand the Israeli mindset, but I just don't think it's possible unless you've lived "in the shoes".

But a national mentality of assuming abandonment comes at an extremely high cost.

Preparing and paying for every contingency can come at such a high cost it destroys what was to be protected in the first place.

Tane Angle
07-10-2004, 07:49 PM
It's another strike option in regards to Iran, and takes Iraq/the US out of the awkward position of having IAF aircraft over Iraqi/US-controlled airspace. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

IDFM203
07-10-2004, 11:24 PM
Well that’s just the thing.....its not ever growing ties with Turkey, in fact recently its ever decreasing ties and well who’s knows if it will be soon completely cut off.........the same for India (though its not decreasing like it is with Turkey), its ok now, but based on past experience, we cant afford to rely on it staying the same.

Well, I hope the relationship between Israel and Turkey develops in a positive way in the future...... Well I hope so too and trust me any detracting of relations is not coming from us………I am not sure if you are following the news about this, but like I said recent actions by them have actually led to a reduction of the relationship (I believe they recalled a ambassador, they canceled a military deal and also some very negative and hostile statements have been made by them), so I am afraid to report but yes I think the Islamic side is winning out a bit.


A recent report in Business Week led me to believe that mutual trade between Israel and India that began with security products and services has blossomed to include other trade sectors. Yes with India it is very good, I just said that we cant ever rely on it ever being as good as it is and with past experience with others, well we have every reason not to rely on any outside goodwill to ever last.


I would think 3 relatively reasonable and secular nations like Israel, Turkey, and India would see the wisdom in developing extremely strong ties as the three nations totally dominate the region both militarily and economically..... Like I said, we fully recognize the wisdom, the question is how much does turkey recognize it and for India, well it’s a wait and see but I don’t think we cant ever rely on it.


If recent events have damaged ties between Israel and Turkey I hope they are just "window dressing" to satisfy the ignorant...... Well it might be, but the net effect is that we have a canceled deal, harsh languge and statements and some other things, so window dressing or not, its not something that we can view on very favorably and well its in a downward path and not progressing as it should be by now



Unfortunately, if Israel were ever in a situation where it COULDN'T rely on friends overtly or covertly(as I mentioned previously the Entebbe/Kenya example) it's carrier would be highly vulnerable on it's way to the AO for many reasons, but particularly due to geography.

And because of that.......I think if Israel does go down this track it's going to be an incredibly difficult and expensive endeavour. Well indeed if we couldn’t rely on friends, indeed our defense would be more expensive and yes it is sad, but we need to survive and well whatever expense is necessary to survive IMO is what’s needed.

Secondly its not the only reason why we want it, for even if we have friends, we still need a “base” that’s closer to the action so to speak and well this provides it.


I try to understand the Israeli mindset, but I just don't think it's possible unless you've lived "in the shoes".True but for a outsider I make it simple and I would say just think how we feel NEVER AGAIN and how much we take that seriously, I think that’s should explain all that’s needed to know!!


But a national mentality of assuming abandonment comes at an extremely high cost. Yes it does, but based on our collective experience, I think we have no choice but to expect that and well I take that at least we can now do something about it over then merely doing nothing (I am not saying they could have done anything but still the fact remains most did nothing) like what most Jews did by the holocaust when they walked like sheep to a slaughter to the gas chambers :|


Preparing and paying for every contingency can come at such a high cost it destroys what was to be protected in the first place. now now that’s a bit too far ;) ………we have a responsible government that has a budget and spends accordingly and right now the defense spending percentage is at 8.7 percent to the overall GDP and that’s not at a point of not being able to survive and also its no where near the over 25 percent of the budget on how it was years back and yet still then we survived, so no I disagree with your above statement, but indeed I understand your sentiment.


Shalom :D

tacticalmanta
07-11-2004, 12:10 AM
It is important to note that Israel operates in some very unexpected parts of the world. Let's not forget the IDF navy even has operated in Lybia, the waters off of Yemen, the Persian Gulf and um.. other places.

The comment concerning passage of through the Suez is an issue of International Law and Egypt really doesn't have too much to say about it. I have pictures of Daburim taking the Suez.

sgt.pepper
07-13-2004, 07:41 AM
we should invest more money in the protection and development of new APC's

oldsoak
07-13-2004, 09:23 AM
I thought you are - isnt it going to be Tigess based on a Merkava chassis ?

sgt.pepper
07-13-2004, 11:12 AM
i don't know i heard that army will buy american strykers to replace old m113

oldsoak
07-13-2004, 12:24 PM
I think they've binned that - if you go to www.tank-net.org they've got some info on it. Looks like its going to be good kit.

Uncle Chô
07-13-2004, 03:09 PM
Like this one? ;)

http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/TPC/Funny_Pictures/0001-1000/0701-0800/0790/0790.jpg

S'13
07-13-2004, 03:35 PM
I thought you are - isnt it going to be Tigess based on a Merkava chassis ?



Here is an article I have already posted on the subject:


The two incidents last month in which 11 IDF soldiers were killed in APCs in Gaza have again raised the issue of how the army should deal with the threat of missiles and bombs against its military vehicles.

The team dealing with the Merkava tank plan in the Defense Ministry is currently building a prototype of a heavy APC ("Nemera") based on a Merkava Mark 1 tank, which is no longer serviceable and whose turret has been removed.

The Nemera's most significant advantage is the high level of protection it provides and its weapons systems; the disadvantage is its high price. The army team believes it will cost some $750,000 to build one APC of this type.

Israel is considered a world leader in armored protection, and some of the Israeli security industries have developed a revolutionary approach to armored combat vehicles. They believe that adding armor-plating to an APC is an old-fashioned approach that has outlived its usefulness, as new missiles are capable of piercing armor or finding weak spots in the seams of the protective armor. The new approach is protection based on radar and electronics that can deflect an approaching missile.

Following long-range assessments, the ground corps forces have concluded that light infantry should be given precedence over heavy infantry. Next month three American Striker APCs will arrive here for a long series of examinations and experiments. When the results are collated, the army will decide what kind of protection is needed for the infantry.

The decision in principle to acquire the Striker was preceded by visits to Fort Knox, Kentucky, by Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon and the commander of the ground forces, Yiftah Ron-Tal. IDF officers are pleased with the APC's ability to perform and its relatively light weight, and are not particularly worried about criticism in the U.S. about the Striker's faulty protective system.

The Striker, which rides on wheels, is an expression of the move toward a different type of warfare which is expected to take place to a large extent in urban areas. This assessment is based to a certain extent on guess work, but military intelligence does not believe that large-scale battles of the type fought in the Yom Kippur War are likely in the foreseeable future.

Until the IDF gets its Strikers, the ground forces have decided to rely on the Achzarit heavy infantry assault vehicle built on the basis of the Russian T-55s, and to try to upgrade the M-113s.

Last week, after a year-and-a-half's delay, the deal known as Project Bazelet was signed with Israel Military Industries for improving the protection of 50 M-113 APCs. It includes adding protective covering of three tons, a new engine, new tracks, and a driver's seat with power steering. The cost will be $20 million. Although the APC is 35 years old, the IDF is considering gradually upgrading hundreds of the old APCs because of their availability and relatively low cost.

No tank or APC stands a chance against a roadside bomb or mine in war time, and the enemy can always increase the quantity of explosives. But here too there is good news. A group of scientists at Rafael is developing an electronic system that can discover explosives deep beneath the ground. The solution therefore does not lie in passive protection, but development of the new system is still a long way off.

The budget of the ground forces for 2004 stands at NIS 1.3 billion, 23 percent less than last year. Ron-Tal believes that money can be saved by combining the Ground Forces and the Technological and Logistics Division of the army, as many similar functions are performed by both. The chief of staff thinks otherwise.

Ron-Tal claims that the slashed budget has put the ground forces' flagship project - "a digital ground force " - at risk. The project involves the development of a command and control system which apparently has no equal in any army in the world today. It would put the senior officers of the entire IDF, as far up as the chief of staff - on the ground, in the air, and at sea - on one communications system. The project, which would take eight years to complete, is expected to cost some NIS 5 billion.

In order to save the project, Ron-Tal has proposed to the German chief of staff to fund half of it in return for Israeli technological know-how. The Germans have not yet given their response. If they turn down the offer, the IDF is expected to seek another partner.

http://wmh.walla.co.il/archive/109096-5.jpg

This is how it's supposed to look

oldsoak
07-13-2004, 04:00 PM
looks good. How many troops can it carry ? IIRC an Israeli section is normally 6 men ( as opposed to 8 in the UK - our Warrior APC carries 7 squaddies in the back )

sgt.pepper
07-15-2004, 03:34 PM
israeli section is more than 6 soldiers.Israeli infantry and armoured corps are based on hmmm... i think i should say triada that's means 3 squads of 3 soldiers make an section, above them is platoon 3 sections, a company 3 platoons, batalion of the regular infantry has 4 companies 2 of them are veteran soldiers and rest are young soldiers,reserve infantry batalion is based on 2 rifle companies and 1 support company[heavy weapons]

oldsoak
07-15-2004, 04:21 PM
Thanks for that - that explains how the Israeli section carries more firepower than we do - you have 3 fire-teams as compared to our 2 which in turn give you more options. I thought you were arranged in threes, because some IDF photographs showed people clustering in threes or multiples of three. Logically that would mean the new "Tigress" should be able to carry a complete section of 9 men plus supplies for however long your planners want them fighting before getting supplies to them. Could get cramped in there - so I hope the ventilation is good ! :) :

sgt.pepper
07-15-2004, 04:53 PM
@oldsoak, british infantry has more firepower you have IFV armed with 30mm cannon we have only machine guns at least few of them :D.Fully equiped infantry section has 10 soldiers nco included ,the tigress will carry maybe 9 or 10 infantryman don't forget it's based on a tank chassis with the engine section placed forward i wish i could see this apc[ifv] armed with remote controlled turret like raphael 30mm+spike atgw combo we are lacking medium caliber weapon in some situation you can't use the tank gun and 0.5 cal is not enough to penetrate walls.You have to notice one thing israeli infantry relay mostly on quick manoevre and movement supported by fire,and our combat tactics prefer rather manoevre than big firepower.

oldsoak
07-15-2004, 05:49 PM
Agreed. i was thinking in terms of the firepower availible to the section by itself as not all our uniits are mechanised. 30mm cannon is good for keeping enemy heads down in their binkers though ! Currently we are looking at an 8 man section with 2 fire teams, each with 1xminimi, 1xLSW ( for use as a marksmans weapon ) 2xRifle, one with a grenade launcher. I'd assume you guys to be similar so you would have 3 minimis ( or equivalent ) to our 2 and 3 grenade launchers to our 2, so you'd have a big increase in firepower. I'd be suprised if the Israelis dont come out with a turret with something big and nasty in it. A remotely controlled turret with a 20mm cannon like the German Marder would be quite useful . Maybe a modular mission turret - 20mm cannon today, .50 calibre MG with SPIKE tomorrow - which would be pretty damn useful. This looks good, I must go and buy another Merk model when it comes out so that I can conver it. :)

sgt.pepper
07-15-2004, 06:35 PM
Isreali raphael has already developed remote controlled turret , but usually we have'nt enough money to emplement it in.Regarding section firepower i can't tell you exactly how many and what kinds of weapon it has ,i was a tanker[gun loader] so you can try to ask other israelis on this forum.Hmm... as far as i know single section 10 soldiers has 1 or maybe 2 MG's[Negev],2 m16/m203 ,2 sharpshooter m16 sometimes law rockets ,hand grenades,cold and hot breaching gear,various backpacks with additional stuff sometimes soldiers add additional gear knives ,swiss knives etc.... it's heavly depends on specified combat mission, in the war time they have platoon based heavy weapon section equiped with the mk19 grenade launchers.0.5 MG's,MAG 7.62mm and a lot of more gear.I wish i could see the competition between our Golani infantry brigade and your Paras especially 2 batalion,btw i think that british army and especially scottish units were and are among the best soldiers in the world .Regards

oldsoak
07-15-2004, 07:36 PM
Pretty much like us then - the mission dictates what you must bring. Certainly my impression of Israelis is that they carry a lot of firepower per section. A competiton between elites is going to be like a knife fight in a telphone booth - very close indeed ! We certainly take the Israelis very seriouisly indeed - we rate them as good as anyone in NATO if not better. Certainly, if anyone says "The Israelis found that in this situation, X was the best thing to do " we sit up and listen !

sgt.pepper
07-16-2004, 05:54 AM
@did you serve in the army?

oldsoak
07-16-2004, 08:33 AM
Currently in the reserves. I have an expensive wife.....

sgt.pepper
07-16-2004, 08:53 AM
it must be TA am i right

W(M)D
07-16-2004, 10:15 AM
Oldsoak - I bet your bounty was used up by the wife before it was paid out by the MoD - LOL
Sgt Pepper - where did you serve?

Getting back to the issue at hand, an Israeli aircraft carrier may come in useful especially for operations in the seas off NZ!!!

Raistlin
07-16-2004, 10:37 AM
Oh yesszzzz. Nastieszz NZzzzzz.

oldsoak
07-16-2004, 11:38 AM
@sgt.pepper - that the one !


Oldsoak - I bet your bounty was used up by the wife before it was paid out by the MoD - LOL
Sgt Pepper - where did you serve?

Getting back to the issue at hand, an Israeli aircraft carrier may come in useful especially for operations in the seas off NZ!!!

- You've been there too huh ? - every bugger I know has had the bounty spent before he's even got it !

:D
- bloody did not need a new washer or fridge-freezer........

W(M)D
07-16-2004, 11:44 AM
My first years of bounties went on personal kit, the mid years it went on good lads holidays and the latter years it went to the long haired Sarnt Major!!

R u still in?

sgt.pepper
07-16-2004, 12:46 PM
Sgt Pepper - where did you serve I was a tank crewman 8 years ago my tank was merkava 3 woot p-)

stateofequilibrium
07-16-2004, 01:05 PM
its part of the zionest plan to invade holland
they want your tulips rofl
its just looks like a big target otherwise. unless israel wants to get into bothering other countrys business .
In the event of peace breaking out in the middle east I vote for the lords resistance army in Uganda to be the first stop for the IDFs world victory tour :lol:

Laugh all you want, what do you think help precipitate the fall of the Ottoman Empire? :-)

oldsoak
07-16-2004, 03:01 PM
@W(m)d Still in - two more years to go !

martinexsquaddie
07-19-2004, 02:17 AM
been to basra yet?
if no when do you go :(
I'm so glad I left the TA a few years ago don't fancy 6 months of staggin on :(
did enough of that in the regs

oldsoak
07-19-2004, 05:03 AM
been to basra yet?
if no when do you go :(
I'm so glad I left the TA a few years ago don't fancy 6 months of staggin on :(
did enough of that in the regs

Not been to sunny Basra - yet. Unless you were a tech or linesman they only took lance jacks and below from our unit. That and the fact I'm getting to be an old fart probably means I'll stay behind - which will please the missus. She's already threatened the veto on me going !

W(M)D
07-20-2004, 08:31 AM
I was on Telic 1. Fortunately, not much stagging on. They took us all lock stock & barrel, interesting times as we went for war fighting phases and stayed also for initial peace support ops, etc

Oldsoak - 2 years to go, sometimes I dont reckon that I have 2 exercises left to go. I certainly dont do it for the bounty anymore. BTW - A Telic tour keeps you away from the wife so there are some plusses!