MiG-25 vs F-4 in Iran-Iraq war

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

No SR-71 has ever been shot down by a MiG-25/31, and until such an event occurs the onus is on you to provide evidence that the MiG can indeed shoot down the Lockheed.
LOL... On me? And how exactly should such evidence look like so that it satisfies your high standards?

Remarkable claims always call for remarkable evidence.
Except it was you who was making a claim about invulnerability, so logically it's you who's carrying the burden of a proof. I have already successfully countered this nonsense with the articles about multiple lock-ons, so get prepared for some hard work..

Since when was the Soviet air defence system a deterrence to USAF B-52, B-2, B1B - as and when the appropriate time and circumstances should come?
I don't understand the meaning of this question.

The potential maximum dash speed - not its cruise speed like the 3.2 Mach of the SR-71
That in no way negates my original claim that Iraqi MiG-25s were able to fly at M2.8.

BTW, I'm not claiming the Iranian AF did shoot down the MiG-25 (but the USAF did). I just want to know why the SR-71 is so vulnerable to intercept by MiG, while the MiG-25RB can safely escape F-14A.
You are, again, twisting the whole story.. The topic was whether Iranian F-14s have shot down any Iraqi MiG-25s and the documents indicate they have not. End of story. No one claimed they were technically not capable to achieve a Foxbat kill or anything about USAF (WTF!?)

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

F-1XFP: where is that comment show to me! do you think people can't read and decide who's right and who's wrong?

My friend I sincerely apologize as I was multitasking and misread your sentence understanding it "how could Iraqi pilot's attack a target from different directions without being intercepted by Iranian fighters." Because Javidnia was attacked by Iraqi Mirages from four different directions getting him in a cross to shoot him down.
But, as for what you said:
ok any explanation on how Iraqi aircraft was attacking every single target inside Iran without interception?

Yes, as I said before first of all no defense is 100% full proof. Second, as the war progressed the F-14's role became deterrent rather than shooting down Iraqi fighters the reason being that they began suffering from shortage of spare parts and coolant for the Phoenix missiles. So what you are saying above is true in terms of more successful attacks as the war prolonged. If every single attack was successful, then how did Iraq loose its 170-200 planes (as per the number stated here not mine!) during the war? I read the interview with Mr. Abousi and selected part of his interview regarding F-14 & loss of Iraqi fighters:

Abousi: The intelligence we had on Iran was extremely weak. That is why we relied on the courage of our pilots. The Iranian air defenses were strong. Each air base was like a ball of fire. We would lose one or two of our aircraft on every mission.

Murray: They were using chaff dispensers [on ships] like the British did in the Falklands.
Woods: And they put reflectors on boats to give the Exocets mixed signals.
Abousi: Those near the ports and along the Iranian coast. The Mirage could go much farther. We would locate and intercept ships at great distances.
The only air defense the ships had were F-14s. This affected air force operations.
Woods: Especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
Abousi: Exactly. F-14s were there in the Bushehr area [in Iran] because of the reactor. At the beginning of war, there were no F-14s in the Bushehr area; they were protecting Tehran. The anti-ship issue was such a complicated issue. We lost a lot of pilots, as I recall approximately ten, in the Gulf.

Woods: How many F-14s did you shoot down with the Mirages (using C-530s)?
Abousi: Approximately two F-14 aircraft and maybe
[B]twenty-one Sukhois[/B]. (Sukhois?!!!!! Since when Iran had Sukhois?!!!)

At the first time you did change my comment when you claimed that i said (the external fuel tanks help maneuverability) while my comment still the same even in your quote (second thing extra fuel will gives the pilot more flexibility to maneuver during the attack.) this kind of behavior does not give you reliability, contrariwise this will give other people impression that you're inaccurate person.

I really don't want to get into this part. Maybe the wording you used in Arabic has different meaning in English when using Google, but
maneuver: an action aimed at evading an opponent (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flight+maneuver)
flexibility: the ability to change (or be changed) to fit changed circumstances (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flexibility)
So, (the external fuel tanks help maneuverability) = (second thing extra fuel will gives the pilot more flexibility to maneuver during the attack)
As you said, I will leave this to the readers to decide!!!!

As I said before if you're interested to know the fact of that air war I am glad to help you, but keep posting Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop myths and insists to prove it this will make no since and no one want to west his time with this empty allegations.

As said before, your posts or statements does not make anything a fact and nor does mine! All these are claims which we are sharing with one another to see if we can decipher something out of it!! For the third or fourth time, I DO NOT RELY ON TOM COOPER because many of his statements are incorrect according not to you but to retired IRIAF pilots!! I do not understand why you insist that I am promoting Tom Cooper facts!
Anyway, Javidnia himself says 8 kills and not 12 and Zandi I told you what information I gathered already, making the claim shaky [The French book and Tom Cooper's book] !! Too bad he isn't alive to hear his claim and the 11 kills is based on your dear friend Tom Cooper!

You're free to read whatever you want and believe it, no one will stop you but trying to make it realistic and marketing the idea (like it's really happened) this will not help because other people have eyes and brain as well and they're able to read and see and analyze where is the true and where is the false.
I did said to you when the Iraq AF lost the lonely Super Etendard in training flight the French Advisers known about that incident which mean no MIM-23 Hawk or F-14 involved, isn't simple sentence.

That is why you try to gather information as much as possibles because they are ALL claims, even the Iraqi side! Tom Cooper says most of his information is from the Iraqi side, so does this make it true?!!

As for Super Etendard I said,

The one Super Etendard shot down is said to be by the last testing phase of the converted MIM-23 Hawk fitted to the F-14, but the dates don't match. Again, you must say as claimed by French Advisers!!

Abousi: We lost one Super Etendard. The pilot turned back when visibility got bad and crashed into the water; he died.
So, French say training accident and Mr. Abousi says poor weather! Unless it was a training accident in poor weather!!!

Because as you said "most claims" which is mean no evidence prove these claims in other hand [I][B]we can see Iraqi AF successfully attack and destroy all targets deeply inside Iranian territory[/B][/I] which is mean Iranian F-14 fail to protect this vital locations (in simple sentence: if the Iranian F-14 was really active as they claims then Iraqi AF shouldn't be able to attack all the targets and destroy it) so it's hard to understand?

And where is the evidence to "we can see Iraqi AF successfully attack and destroy all target . . ."?
Again, I am repeating myself that there is no question that as the war progressed the effectiveness of the F-14s were reduced due to less flight times because of lack of spare parts and coolants for Phoenix missiles. What you are saying is true to the extent that this was more intense during the last years of the war and not the entire period of the war.

No Egyptian or any foreign pilot or aircraft participated in Iran-Iraq war this is simply lies and empty allegations.

Again, claims by Iraqis they weren't and claim by Iranians that they were. There is NO PROOF to either side!!

It's not my behavior to insult a fighter pilot even if he was my enemy, my point is very clear Cold War Period started from 1947 to 1991 where the fighter pilots achieved high kill ratio after WWII such (Korean War, Arab-Israel conflict ..etc) so with these claims Javidnia became the winner of this period with no single evidence prove his claims!

My friend, NO ONE whether in WWII, Vietnam or Korea has evidence and 100% proof of all kills, that is why the 100% confirmed numbers is always so lower than claimed ones!! This does NOT mean claimed ones are inaccurate, however. U.S. for sure has information on fighters being shot down over the Persian Gulf. But can you access them? Mr. Abousi says we lost many pilots over the Persian Gulf!! Where is the proof? Bottom of the sea, so how can Iranians access them?!!
Abousi: Many air clashes happened in the war’s opening days. The skill level between the Iraqi and Iranian pilots was almost equal. The Iranians downed a small number of our aircraft over our territory; however, most . . . How can Iranians access those planes?!!
In December of 1981, several Iraqi fighters engaged two F-14s as decoy while the newly acquired Mirages flew low into Iran and shot them from below. The F-14s crashed inside Iran. Where is the proof and evidence of that by Iraqis when they announced that?! Iranians never confirmed or said anything! Even now, the word is out because of retired IRIAF pilots!

Now I have a few questions about Mr. Abousi's interview if you can help to clear:

Murray: During the 1980 strikes, were all of the Iranian bases targeted in that first strike?
Abousi: Approximately. We hit most of the bases within range, which were the air bases, which would provide air support to Iranian troops.
Murray: Was more attention given to air bases housing particular Iranian aircraft, such as the F-14 bases?
Abousi: We did not target the base with F-14s, because they were too far south and beyond the range of our aircraft.

QUESTION: Tehran, Esfahan (F-14 main home base) & Shiraz (F-14 home base), are almost in a line from north to south, Esfahan being closer to the Iraq-Iran border. It seems at least Esfahan was in range, so why do you think the base wasn't attacked?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0244041,50.9638995,5z

Woods: Did you have occasion to hear either through intelligence or through POW debriefings what kind of training the Iranian Air Force was receiving?
Abousi: Under the shah, Iranian Air Force training was excellent. The pilots attended training sessions in Pakistan and the United States. We could see how good their air force was in the early days of the war. They downed a reconnaissance aircraft on 13 September, just
before the war started.
Murray: What kind of Iraqi aircraft was shot down?
Abousi: They shot down a Sukhoi-22. After the fall of the shah, many of the experienced Iranian pilots fled; only the novice pilots remained. We learned this from Iranian prisoners during their interrogations. The Iranian Air Force was divided into two parts:
the main air force and the al-Haras al-Thawri al-Irani.203 The Iranian Air Force had the same basic equipment as the Iraqi Air Force; we had the Sukhoi-24 and the Mirage AQ6, while they had the Adnan-1 and Ilyushin-76

COMMENT/QUESTION: Yes the Iranian pilots were trained very well and it seems Mr. Abousi had first hand experience in the beginning of the war flying a few sorties during the 22nd & 23rd of September, 1980. However, the Shah had left and revolution had taken place some 19 months before!! During the 19th months, many of the air force personnel were executed, purged, imprisoned, fled or left the country, etc. Needless to say many of the execution took place after a failed Coup after the revolution. So how is it we have the experienced ones in the early days of the war as well as only novice pilots remained?!!!
COMMENT: The al-Haras al-Thawri al-Irani or IRGC (Revolutionary Guard) was not realized until after the war!!! The fleet was consisted of Iraqi planes flown to Iran during The Persian Gulf War!!!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236914[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236915[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236916[/ATTACH]

COMMENT: NO COMMENT REGARDING THE AIR OPERATION ON H-3!!!
Woods: I read a report that there was some concern that Iranian aircraft were operating from Syrian airfields. Did that ever happen, or was that just a false report?
Abousi: That did not happen. Iraq had a good relationship with Syria. In fact, one time an Iranian Phantom F-4 formation flew through Syrian airspace to strike al-Walid Air Base. This was not Syria’s fault. When we asked Syria for clarification, there was no
indication that they had anything to do with this Iranian mission. On one occasion an Iranian bomber aircraft entered our air space by flying under a civilian aircraft. It flew with the civilian aircraft, refueled in the air, entered our border that way, bombed, and then flew back via the same route. This was what was wrong with our air defense in 1982. Saddam blamed the air force and executed the commander of the 2nd Air Defense Sector.

Woods: Were the Iraqi air force pilots captured by Iran repatriated?
Abousi: They were returned in batches, in 1989, 1990, and 1991. Not all of the pilots returned. For example, Talal Jamil, who flew Sukhoi-22 aircraft, defected to Iran in 1982. He was a coward and a poor pilot. He would get nervous and sweat when briefed on a mission.
COMMENT: I am actually interested in this Talal Jamil, because as far as I know and it was discussed with IRIAF retired pilots, NO IRAQI PILOT ever defected to Iran, something that was envied and respected. Unlike Iran who had several defections, 5-7 if I'm not mistaking.

Attachments

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Wiki is not always a reliable source Lukos; especially, when it comes to these claims. While I do believe the IRIAF had ~200+ kills in air to air combat, but the detail is not quite accurate. On Jalil Zandi, I explained before that a document has resurfaced showing only ONE KILL up to the beginning of the 3rd year of the war, while it is believed most F-14s kills (By comparing only two of the F-14 pilots' kill) was within the first two years. Jalil Zandi was imprisoned for several months and by the time he was released, the F-14s were playing a deterrent role unless it was necessary to fire a Phoenix missile or later F-4 Sparrows and Sidewinders.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 1,760

It does have references.

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

Yes true, but sometimes the references themselves are not accurate. Publishing a book necessarily doesn't make it a reference. Look at history, so many versions of it and all are available and referenced to. As for Tom Cooper, I can tell you that even many of the IRIAF pilots don't attest to its accuracy. But not all is rejected either. :rolleyes:

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 1,760

ACIG also stated MiG-25 kills. Seems to me like a lot of places did and it seems probable. The SR-71 was almost hit, only an inept proximity fuse on an SA-2 prevented it, not the aircraft's speed. Missile passed it head-on, if the fuse had gone off on time, the SR-71 would have been downed.

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

no. that is not what you claimed. You claimed that the F14 was a "special" target aside from any other and there was an award for shooting one down. That is patently false as we have amply demonstrated. And that aids the argument we're making that the F14 was not thought of as anything "special" by the Iraqi military. shooting one down was NO DIFFERENT than shooting down an iranian T33. You got the same award.

This seems completely illogical to fork up a piece of land, car, etc. for every single achievement; unless, it is a high priority and valued target. So even if the pilots got an award for shooting down a T-33, it is an act of desperation meaning that it is an achievement!! The rationale of an award is incentive and motivation for an act to be done or be done better. I do not dispute the award but I question giving away awards like candy and in a sense reducing the value of the act itself. I understand Mr. Abousi, a Major General, received 3 Mercs and Lt. Gen. Kabi received 4 Mercs.

no. air forces had budgets (huge ones at that) and they tried making impressions. however ultimately all battles of the war were won and lost with artillery, tanks and infantry. I would say (at least on the Iraqi side) that engineering works made a decisive role in the war, and Iraqis used man made water and earth works to negate their major disadvantage in strategic depth and defensive topology that the Iranians did not have. All far more important than MiG25s or F4 phantoms or anything of that sort...

I completely disagree! You are at war and do not have the luxury of showing off and making impressions.
Yes I agree, ultimately the war is fought on the ground even during the Second Persian Gulf War, Iraq was destroyed mainly by air at the beginning but once the ground forces entered, the allies began losing soldiers, vehicles, etc. But still, the air operation played a major role and so it did for Iran-Iraq war. Tanker Wars were fought by planes on the Iraqi side, industries, oil terminal & facilities, power plants, . . . all of these high value targets were done via air operations mainly.

Air power played a marginal secondary role, and even when iran didn't have air defences iraqis never used their airpower effectively. and even when Iran had 300 BVR planes versus 0 Iraqi BVR planes... the iranians never protected their interior air space effectively let alone managed to impose air supremacy over the battlefield... all in all it shows very ineffective use of air power by both sides. yet they both continued putting effort and funding in keeping their air forces active. similarly Iraq spent over $3Bn for its navy in 1982 despite the Iraqi navy having no current or any potential future effective role in warfare due to its geography.

Again disagree, it played a secondary role but by no way it was marginal. As said, the air forces performed tactical operations on high value targets, whether they were, industrial, economical, military, . . . These are objectives which cannot be achieved via artillery or tanks; unless, you fully invade the territory. It was the air force that 67 days in to the war, played the major role pushing Iraqi Navy out of the theater. It was Iraqi air force that attacked over one hundred ships in the Persian Gulf, which could not have been done by ground forces!
As I explained before, the effective BVR aircraft Iran had was the F-14, which beginning of the war 20-30 were operational and gradually they increased in numbers within a few months. You are accounting the F-4s as effective BVR fighters which the Vietnam war proved they weren't!! In fact, they were engaging the MiG-17s & 19s, losing to them in dogfights and even worse to MiG-21s. Now this is evidence and fact my friend. So please stop saying 300+ BVR aircraft!! Within 14 months after the war, Iraq received its BVR fighters, replenishing and modernizing its fleet rapidly as Iran's operational F-14s began deteriorating. And if the F-14 weren't so effective, why was The U.S. so worried about its retired F-14 in 2006, 18 years after the Iran-Iraq war, that it ordered them dismantled and destroyed, so that the parts would not end up in Iran? And please don't say that Iran gained its expertise after the war or late into the war!!!! If the US trained pilots and ground crew personnel couldn't do it then, the newbies would certainly not!! Just look at these photos below and the age of the ground crew personnel!!!! They are years beyond their retirement age!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236917[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236918[/ATTACH]

I apologise I meant "conflate".

No need to but SU-22 is still SU-22M/M3/M4! :p

but they didn't decimate the iraqi air force. I mean even Tu-16, Il-28, Hawker Hunter and SU-7s were flying into Iranian air space in 1980-81, bombing Iran and flying back unscathed... HUNDREDS OF TIMES! not once or twice. surely If Iran could keep just 4-5 F14s in the air they would have decimated those squadrons flying 1950s antiques.

Yes decimation is an exaggeration, but minimizing their performance and mission, it really was for the first two years.
Again, that is not correct, having the F-14 doesn't make the country invulnerable. Iraqi pilots had their tricks up their sleeves, but many of their attempts failed; although, I do not dispute their limited successes on vital targets even during the first two years. Air superiority was their until the Mirages arrived, which helped the Iraqi air force dramatically.

even MiG23BN were bombing Tehran in the early 80s, let alone TU-22 and anything else that had the range. Iraq had no missile capable of reaching Tehran until 1987. Every single raid on Tehran until then was by aircraft.

Abousi: . . . However, they were able to down some of our bombers, the Tu-22s, so we stopped flying them into Iran after 23 September.
As for missiles, for Tehran, Esfahan (Cities deep into the territory) it was much earlier than 1987, around late 1984 and Iran started around the same time.
Attachments

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

ACIG also stated MiG-25 kills. Seems to me like a lot of places did and it seems probable. The SR-71 was almost hit, only an inept proximity fuse on an SA-2 prevented it, not the aircraft's speed. Missile passed it head-on, if the fuse had gone off on time, the SR-71 would have been downed.

I understand, but I have on good authority that Iran managed to shoot down only ONE CONFIRMED MiG-25 with its Phoenix missile during the entire 8 year war; although, they managed to cancel many many MiG-25 missions. I explained before that the F-14 has only about 10 seconds to identify (at a distance), acquire and fire upon the MiG-25 in a head on interception. Another by an F-5 gun was due to malfunction on the part of the MiG-25 that had to fly lower & slower!

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 1,760

How so, the F-14 radar could acquire targets at 100 miles range?

Member for

16 years 9 months

Posts: 2,318

The SR-71 was almost hit, only an inept proximity fuse on an SA-2 prevented it, not the aircraft's speed. Missile passed it head-on, if the fuse had gone off on time, the SR-71 would have been downed.

Are you thinking about the A-12 (Sortie BX6734, CIA Pilot Denny Sullivan) with SA-2 shrapnel damage over North Vietnam?

Under Fire over Vietnam
North Vietnam fired SAMs at BLACK SHIELD A-12s three times but caused damage only once. The first attempted shootdown occurred on the 16th mission on 28 October 1967. Flown by Dennis Sullivan, the aircraft was on its second pass, approaching Hanoi from the west, when an SA-2 was launched at it. Photographs taken during the mission show missile smoke above the SAM site and the missile and its contrail, heading down and away from the aircraft. The A-12’s ECMs worked well, and the SAM, which was fired too late, was never a threat. [13]

The second incident, two days later, on the 18th mission, was the closest an OXCART aircraft ever came to being shot down. Sullivan again was the pilot. On the first pass between Hanoi and Haiphong, radar tracking detected two SAM sites preparing to launch, but neither did. On the second pass toward Hanoi and Haiphong from the west, at least six missiles were fired from sites around the capital. The A-12 was flying at Mach 3.1 at 84,000 feet. Looking out the rear-view periscope, Sullivan reported seeing six vapor trails go up to about 90,000 feet behind the aircraft, arc over, and begin converging on it. He saw four missiles—one as close as 100 to 200 yards away—and three detonations behind the A-12. Six missile contrails appeared on mission photography.

A post-flight inspection at Kadena found that a piece of metal, probably debris from an exploded missile, had penetrated the lower right wing and lodged near the fuel tank. A BLACK SHIELD officer at Kadena noted that the A-12 pilots were “showing considerable anxiety about overflying this area before we get some answers.” Helms ordered that missions be temporarily suspended. None was flown until 8 December. It and the following one two days later photographed the Cambodia-Laos-South Vietnam triborder area and were not sent over the North. [14]

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-12/finding-a-mission.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2013-featured-story-archive/images/a12damage002.jpg/452892fc-9a06-4001-adb5-7a3bdd72e9d8.jpeg

but the post-flight inspection crew made a surprising discovery: two small pieces of metal had penetrated the plane’s lower right wing and lodged against the support structure by the wing’s fuel tank. The fragments were not warhead pellets, but may have been part of the debris from one of the missile detonations near the plane.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2013-featured-story-archive/pieces-of-history-missile-debris-from-a-12-oxcart.html

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 19

4everf14
Do not take my reply like I am offensive you, don not apologize everything is alright.
A. To be honest with you i have no idea who is Capt Javidnia and how they lost him at the war but to me as ex-Mirage F1 fighter pilot i spent most my service at 89Sq interception squadron later at 79Sq ground attack, i can see this scenario far from reality (was attacked by Iraqi Mirages from four different directions getting him in a cross to shoot him down.) if we attack from different directions in this case i will be not able to identify the aircraft from friendly or foe then perhaps i will kill my friend, that's why I am telling you most of what you read is not correct and simply lies

B.4everf14:then how did Iraq loose its 170-200 planes
As i said to you in my previous comments Iraq air force lost only 37 aircraft in aerial combat during 8 years of war, 160 aircraft the total lost of Iraq AF during the war due to the following reasons:-
1.Shot down by Iraq air defences during 1980-1982.
2.Shot down by Iranian air defences AAA or SAM.
3.Aircraft down due to the bombs premature detonation.
4.Aircraft shot down in aerial combat.
5.Aircraft run out of fuel.
6.Aircraft flown into the ground or hit the water "sea" or hit the mountains such TU-16s and Su-22s.
That doesn't mean all these aircraft shot down in A to A.

C.Good you mentioned part from this Interview between Major General Alwan al-Abousi and Mr Kevin Woods, this interview contains inaccurate statements attributed to Major General Alwan al-Abousi perhaps there was mistake in translation or misunderstand, Major General al-Abousi was very upset and not satisfied for this translation, he promised he will contact Mr.Kevin through an Iraqi General still in touch with him to correct this statements and you can check this site reading the fifth comment to OIAF http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=26540

D.4everf14:Abousi: The intelligence we had on Iran was extremely weak. That is why we relied on the courage of our pilots. The Iranian air defenses were strong. Each air base was like a ball of fire. We would lose one or two of our aircraft on every mission.
Yes I think Mr Major General Alwan al-Abousi refer to air bases attack earlier in the war especially to Su-22's squadrons (he doesn't mean whole the war and each target).

E.4everf14:Murray: They were using chaff dispensers [on ships] like the British did in the Falklands.
Woods: And they put reflectors on boats to give the Exocets mixed signals.
Abousi: Those near the ports and along the Iranian coast. The Mirage could go much farther. We would locate and intercept ships at great distances. The only air defense the ships had were F-14s. This affected air force operations.
Yes he clarified (that Iran has no other effective weapons can use it to protect their ships except the F-14s) which is mean chaff dispensers wasn't effective against Iraqi Mirages or other aircraft.
But here if you ask me does the Iranian F-14 were able to shot down Iraqi aircraft over the gulf i will say yes thy did shot down Mirage F1 in mission to destroy Bushehr nuclear reactor flown by Capt Mahmoud he was No4 in that formation while they successfully bombed Iranian reactor intercepted by F-14 took off from Bahregan Airport
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236930[/ATTACH]

F.4everf14:Abousi: Exactly. F-14s were there in the Bushehr area [in Iran] because of the reactor. At the beginning of war, there were no F-14s in the Bushehr area; they were protecting Tehran. The anti-ship issue was such a complicated issue. We lost a lot of pilots, as I recall approximately ten, in the Gulf.
Yes he mean these 10 pilots lost in the gulf due to difficulty and weather conditions plus Air Defense, let me offer you this experience when you got good weather (depend on where you live) try to go for sea and keep your eyes on horizon and see how the sun light reflection will hurt your eyes, so you can imagine when pilot fly long time over the sea on low altitude how they feel..therefore will understand me when i tell you some of these pilot crashed in to the water due to the fatigue.

G.4everf14:Woods: How many F-14s did you shoot down with the Mirages (using C-530s)?
Abousi: Approximately two F-14 aircraft and maybe twenty-one Sukhois. (Sukhois?!!!!! Since when Iran had Sukhois?!!!)
This is one of the mistakes that I have referred to in the translation.

H.4everf14:I really don't want to get into this part. Maybe the wording you used in Arabic has different meaning in English when using Google, but
maneuver: an action aimed at evading an opponent (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flight+maneuver)
flexibility: the ability to change (or be changed) to fit changed circumstances (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flexibility)
So, (the external fuel tanks help maneuverability) = (second thing extra fuel will gives the pilot more flexibility to maneuver during the attack)
As you said, I will leave this to the readers to decide!!!!

*External fuel tanks help to cross long distance.
*External fuel inside the aircraft such wings and fuselage give pilot more flexibility to do what he see is batter to do during the attack (depending on the type of threat and topographic where the target is located).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]236931[/ATTACH]

Will continue later

Attachments

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

How so, the F-14 radar could acquire targets at 100 miles range?

Yes that is correct; however, bare in mind a few things:
1) The F-14 radar is not an AWACS radar meaning that it is limited to frontal detection about 65 degrees to horizontal and 40 degrees vertical; although, the radar can be tilted.
2) Up to 115NM (slightly different from miles) is the range in TWS mode.
3) To intercept, you need a head on approach because of the high speed of the MiG-25, it can out run the Phoenix from long distances.
4) When in a head on approach, you have a combination of Mach 4+ speed. 2.5-2.8 for MiG-25 cruise speed at high altitude is roughly around 2000mph and F-14 @1.6 is about 1200mph = total closing speed of 3200mph = ~55miles per minute So that mean you have total of about two minutes for the two planes to reach each other!
5) The F-14A radar and computer needs to calculate the trajectory of the target and feed initial data to missile and continue updating it after fired until it reaches target. Assuming you catch the target at head on interception at 115NM away identifying it as enemy right away, that may leave you about 50 seconds to fire the missile upon acquiring, have the F-14 on board computer calculate the trajectory of the target feed it to the Phoenix missile and give you a green light to fire. Again, this is at 115NM, F-14 already on a head on intercept (12 o'clock) and knows the target is an enemy.

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 25

but to me as ex-Mirage F1 fighter pilot i spent most my service at 89Sq interception squadron later at 79Sq ground attack, i can see this scenario far from reality (was attacked by Iraqi Mirages from four different directions getting him in a cross to shoot him down.) if we attack from different directions in this case i will be not able to identify the aircraft from friendly or foe then perhaps i will kill my friend, that's why I am telling you most of what you read is not correct and simply lies

Riiiiiiiight!!!!!!

As i said to you in my previous comments Iraq air force lost only 37 aircraft in aerial combat during 8 years of war, 160 aircraft the total lost of Iraq AF during the war due to the following reasons:-
1.Shot down by Iraq air defences during 1980-1982.
2.Shot down by Iranian air defences AAA or SAM.
3.Aircraft down due to the bombs premature detonation.
4.Aircraft shot down in aerial combat.
5.Aircraft run out of fuel.
6.Aircraft flown into the ground or hit the water "sea" or hit the mountains such TU-16s and Su-22s.
That doesn't mean all these aircraft shot down in A to A.

I never said these were A2A kills. I mentioned that number of crafts destroyed (as per numbers mentioned here not mine) including A2A in response to your quote of "ok any explanation on how Iraqi aircraft was attacking every single target inside Iran without interception?" And again as per your claim, ". . . 37 aircraft in aerial combat during 8 . . ." which I do not agree, I lean towards 200 A2A and not total!!!

C.Good you mentioned part from this Interview between Major General Alwan al-Abousi and Mr Kevin Woods, this interview contains inaccurate statements attributed to Major General Alwan al-Abousi perhaps there was mistake in translation or misunderstand, Major General al-Abousi was very upset and not satisfied for this translation, he promised he will contact Mr.Kevin through an Iraqi General still in touch with him to correct this statements and you can check this site reading the fifth comment to OIAF http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=26540

I understand meanings might sometimes change during translation, but some of these are totally something else and inaccurate! Moreover, there are discrepancies between some of his statements.

D.4everf14:Abousi: The intelligence we had on Iran was extremely weak. That is why we relied on the courage of our pilots. The Iranian air defenses were strong. Each air base was like a ball of fire. We would lose one or two of our aircraft on every mission.
Yes I think Mr Major General Alwan al-Abousi refer to air bases attack earlier in the war especially to Su-22's squadrons (he doesn't mean whole the war and each target).

Are these the same SU-22s that are not shown in Iraqi documents as lost during the Iran-Iraq war?

E.4everf14:Murray: They were using chaff dispensers [on ships] like the British did in the Falklands.
Woods: And they put reflectors on boats to give the Exocets mixed signals.
Abousi: Those near the ports and along the Iranian coast. The Mirage could go much farther. We would locate and intercept ships at great distances. The only air defense the ships had were F-14s. This affected air force operations.
Yes he clarified (that Iran has no other effective weapons can use it to protect their ships except the F-14s) which is mean chaff dispensers wasn't effective against Iraqi Mirages or other aircraft.
But here if you ask me does the Iranian F-14 were able to shot down Iraqi aircraft over the gulf i will say yes thy did shot down Mirage F1 in mission to destroy Bushehr nuclear reactor flown by Capt Mahmoud he was No4 in that formation while they successfully bombed Iranian reactor intercepted by F-14 took off from Bahregan Airport

I believe you are misreading it. He is saying the ones close to port and along Iranian coast had the reflectors, chaff dispensers and were effective against Exocet missiles. The F-14 is mentioned regarding the Ships that had left port and were escorted by them until they sailed into the Oman Sea. And at end he says, "This affected air force operations."
Also, a third base for F-14 was not created in Bushehr to protect the nuke plant! The F-14s were already protecting Iran covering the plant, Khark Island, etc. The reason was to reduce their flight time from 24/7 to scramble missions, because of the lack of spare parts. The Bushehr Nuclear Plant had been started before the revolution if protection was needed, it would have been from the start of the war and not 1985!

F.4everf14:Abousi: Exactly. F-14s were there in the Bushehr area [in Iran] because of the reactor. At the beginning of war, there were no F-14s in the Bushehr area; they were protecting Tehran. The anti-ship issue was such a complicated issue. We lost a lot of pilots, as I recall approximately ten, in the Gulf.
Yes he mean these 10 pilots lost in the gulf due to difficulty and weather conditions plus Air Defense, let me offer you this experience when you got good weather (depend on where you live) try to go for sea and keep your eyes on horizon and see how the sun light reflection will hurt your eyes, so you can imagine when pilot fly long time over the sea on low altitude how they feel..therefore will understand me when i tell you some of these pilot crashed in to the water due to the fatigue.

Riiiight!!!! Please note that the above Q/A I posted wasn't from different parts of the interview, I separated the different parts with a spacing!! It was a continuous conversation:
Murray: They were using chaff dispensers [on ships] like the British did in the Falklands.
Woods: And they put reflectors on boats to give the Exocets mixed signals.
Abousi: Those near the ports and along the Iranian coast. The Mirage could go much farther. We would locate and intercept ships at great distances. The only air defense the ships had were F-14s. This affected air force operations.
Woods: Especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
Abousi: Exactly. F-14s were there in the Bushehr area [in Iran] because of the reactor. At the beginning of war, there were no F-14s in the Bushehr area; they were protecting Tehran. The anti-ship issue was such a complicated issue. We lost a lot of pilots, as I recall approximately ten, in the Gulf.

In other words it means: "We would locate and intercept ships at great distances. The only air defense the ships had were F-14s. This affected air force operations. The anti-ship issue was such a complicated issue. We lost a lot of pilots, as I recall approximately ten, in the Gulf." The F-14s affected our operations, we lost a lot of pilots.
Can you please tell me where there is discussion about WEATHER AND AIR DEFENSE AT SEA?!!!!! Thank God this is your source!!

G.4everf14:Woods: How many F-14s did you shoot down with the Mirages (using C-530s)?
Abousi: Approximately two F-14 aircraft and maybe twenty-one Sukhois. (Sukhois?!!!!! Since when Iran had Sukhois?!!!)
This is one of the mistakes that I have referred to in the translation.

You mean it was only two F-14s and nothing more or the twenty one were F-4s or F-5s?!!!

*External fuel tanks help to cross long distance.
*External fuel inside the aircraft such wings and fuselage give pilot more flexibility to do what he see is batter to do during the attack (depending on the type of threat and topographic where the target is located).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]236933[/ATTACH]

Are you even a pilot let alone an EX-MIRAGE F-1 PILOT?!!! My friend what you are showing is INTERNAL TANKS not external!! Even when I downloaded it to upload it again in reply, the file name was INTERNAL!!
PLEASE DON'T DISGRACE THE IRAQI PILOTS WITH YOUR WILD CLAIMS OVER SHADOWING THEIR REAL ACHIEVEMENTS.
THIS WILL BE MY LAST POST AS I EXPECTED TO GET SOME USEFUL FEEDBACK ABOUT THE IRAQI SIDE!

Attachments

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 96

ACIG also stated MiG-25 kills. Seems to me like a lot of places did and it seems probable. The SR-71 was almost hit, only an inept proximity fuse on an SA-2 prevented it, not the aircraft's speed. Missile passed it head-on, if the fuse had gone off on time, the SR-71 would have been downed.

Actually, it wasn't SR-71, but A-12...

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 19


[ATTACH=CONFIG]236933[/ATTACH]

Are you even a pilot let alone an EX-MIRAGE F-1 PILOT?!!! My friend what you are showing is INTERNAL TANKS not external!! Even when I downloaded it to upload it again in reply, the file name was INTERNAL!!
PLEASE DON'T DISGRACE THE IRAQI PILOTS WITH YOUR WILD CLAIMS OVER SHADOWING THEIR REAL ACHIEVEMENTS.
THIS WILL BE MY LAST POST AS I EXPECTED TO GET SOME USEFUL FEEDBACK ABOUT THE IRAQI SIDE!

Your condition is strange! once you understand English but you mean to misunderstand the second thing you keep play this role like you have never ever seen or read anything i written to you and we have to start over again and again. But thankfully everything here saved.
1.Now you are the only one here on this page can't recognize that i said from the beginning:-
1st.external fuel tanks will increase the combat radius operation of the aircraft.
Second thing extra fuel will gives the pilot more flexibility to maneuver during the attack.

And here is picture to my comment on page number 6 on this thread
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236946[/ATTACH]

And now you're trying to questioning my words just because i made mistake in translation while the picture i shared to the F-15 showing internal tanks explain enough my point and the same thing when i said to you he must keep the wings and body fuel at lest to exit point, So with all this explanation it was hard to you to not that was mistake in translation?! now are you going to continue playing this game? If does then i will put end to your game today.
First of all you must stop and avoid writing in red color and capital letters because other people will have impression like you're screaming.
Second thing i want you to understand that i shouldn't be here to spent my time just explaining to you this thing and that thing again and again just to let you understand that Iranian AF was totally unable to repel the Iraqi Air Force during the war, in spite of invite some friends to me to join this discussion to refute Iranian and Tom cooper empty allegations.
And to end this sterile debate let me list this point to you
1.During Iraq-Iran war Iraq air force achieved four hundred thousand 400,000 combat sorties over Iran which is mean Iranian air force was completely powerless. This is documented through statement to Mr. Lt. Gen Hamid Shaaban, the commander of the Iraqi air force during Iran-Iraq war.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236947[/ATTACH]
2.Losses of 160 aircraft during 8 year of war with 400,000 combat sorties means Iraqi air force lost one aircraft in every 2500 combat sorties again this mean Iranian air force was totally powerless.
3.No Iraqi MIG-25's lost in aerial combat during Iraq-Iran war U.S.AF the only one who was able to shot down Iraqi MIG-25's, read and believe what ever you want at the end this is the true.
Below you will see defect and failure Iranian air force to repel all these attacks:





Attachments

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 19

Explain this pictures where is the Iranian air force and their F-14 to protect these targets?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236948[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236949[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236950[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236951[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]236952[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236953[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236954[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236955[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236956[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236957[/ATTACH]

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 19

Another successful Iraqi air strikes on Iran where was their AF?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236979[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236980[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236981[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236982[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

7 years 7 months

Posts: 19

Another pictures porve the failure to Iranian Air Force during the war with Iraq.
http://www.barayand.ir/weblog/Ahwaz_Air_attack_3.jpg
http://www.shana.ir/shanacontent/media/image/2009/09/83779_orig.jpg
http://www.shana.ir/shanacontent/media/image/2009/09/83780_orig.jpg
http://www.shana.ir/shanacontent/media/image/2009/09/83785_orig.jpg
http://www.shana.ir/shanacontent/media/image/2009/09/83787_orig.jpg
http://www.pseez.ir/pseez_content/media/image/2014/09/14717_orig.jpg
http://www.pseez.ir/pseez_content/media/image/2014/09/14722_orig.jpg
http://www.pseez.ir/pseez_content/media/image/2014/09/14714_orig.jpg

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 8,850

Actually, it wasn't SR-71, but A-12...

Wasn't the A-12 actually even faster than the SR?