Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!ted@emx.utexas.edu
From: ted@emx.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Libyan bombers
Message-ID: <5643@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 89 01:12:59 GMT
References: <5548@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 34
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ted@emx.utexas.edu (Ted Woodward)

In article <5548@cbnews.ATT.COM>, pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes:

> I have read articles that the Russians recently sold 14 or 15
> long-range bombers to Libya. Does anybody know whether these
> were Badgers or Backfires? (I would assume the former). The
> article also said that they couldn't reach Israel without
> refueling. I seriously doubt the Libyans have Air-Air refueling
> capabilities.
> 
> Also, combined with the chemical weapons/production plant that is
> now in Libya, can Libya construct/buy delivery systems for these weapons?
> 

The bombers that the Soviets have sold to Libya are Su-24 Fencers,
Not Backfires or Badgers.  The Fencer is a poor cousin to our
F-111, but according to _Jane's All the World's Aircraft_, added
an important capability to their AF.  The Backfire and Badger
(B for bombers, 2 syllable for jet) are strategic bombers, not
tactical, although they are used to carry anti-ship missiles.

Delivery systems for chemical weapons, as well nukes, are very simple
to construct.  Consider the fact that the Cesna that landed in
Red Square a while back could have had one aboard, on a timer or
altimeter.  All you need is some sort of signal to tell it to arm
and something to drop it...




Ted (ted@emx.utexas.edu)--------------------'Laugh while you can, monkey boy!'