Persian Tomcats in service

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
interesting artical...i think it will be good practice
for collitition (sp?) forces, to engage and practice
"their art".... remember, the f14 is over 30 yrs old...

And the SA-6 and radar tracking system that took down the first F-117
"Stealth" in Yugoslavia was how old?

And the eyeball-guided AAA in 'Nam?

Never bet your ass that modern technology will trump dedicated
ingenuity, even when fighting against sticks and rocks.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

wrote:
DDAY wrote:
There's a very interesting article in the current issue of Combat Aircraft,
Vol 7, No. 6. It's by Tom Cooper and Liam F. Devlin and titled "Iran: A
Formidable Opponent?"

The article is about Iran's current air force capabilities, specifically
focusing on the Tomcats in Iranian service (it is in keeping with the
issue's focus on the retirement of the Tomcat from USN service; several
other magazines are doing similar Tomcat farewell issues).

According to the authors, the Tomcat remains in frontline Iranian service
and in sizeable numbers. The authors claim that in late 2003 a USAF E-3
Sentry tracked 16--yes, SIXTEEN--Iranian Tomcats flying in formation. This
was the largest number spotted at one time since 1997, when nine were
tracked over the southern Persian Gulf by the US Navy.

The article is somewhat defensive in tone. The authors claim that although
Western sources report that the Tomcat is barely operable, this is untrue.
The Iranians have put a lot of effort into maintaining and even rebuilding
their Tomcats and Phantoms, and they may have as many as 65 Phantoms in
service. It said that the US has decided that the Tomcat is barely operable
because it no longer operates on the borders, but only deep inside Iran.
But they claim that this is actually because the Iranians are trying to
preserve their assets and keep their most powerful fighter farther from
potential harm.

They also make a number of other claims, including that the CIA may have
acquired or inspected a Russian MiG-31 in 1997, and that the Russians
offered 22 secondhand MiG-31 aircraft to the Iranians, who turned them down.
(The CIA reportedly sought to buy these aircraft rather than let the
Iranians get them.) The article also claims that the Russians offered
Su-27s, Su-30s, and MiG-29s to the Iranians, but the Iranians are wary of
buying Russian aircraft because the terms are bad. For instance, the
Russians do not allow license building of their jet engines. Simply put,
the Russians won't give the Iranians enough independence and the Iranians
don't want to get stuck in a position of weakness when it comes to acquiring
spare parts for their aircraft.

There's a lot of amazing stuff in the article and it would be fascinating if
true. But one objection that I've heard others make about Cooper and his
other co-writer Farzad Bishop is that it is impossible to independently
confirm their information. They might conduct a lot of interviews with
Iranian pilots and ex-pat Iranians, but we don't know how carefully they
check their information. (This article by Cooper and Devlin concedes that
fewer Iranians have left the country since the mid-1990s, so it is harder to
speak to Iranians outside the country.)

Personally, the one thing I'm dubious about is the claim that Western
intelligence agencies do not have a good understanding of just how active
the Iranian F-14s are. If they turn on their radars, then the US intel
assets in the Persian Gulf will detect them. In addition, satellite photos
should also indicate how many F-14s are operable. Sure, the Iranians must
keep a lot of them in hangars, but occasionally they will move them around
airfields and they can be counted. In fact, somebody with a credit card
could order up commercial images of Iranian airfields and check for
themselves. So I don't buy the claim that US intel officials think that
_virtually no_ F-14s or their AWG-9 radars are still operating. My
suspicion is that the authors are responding to misinformed trash talking in
the aviation press, not to what US intel actually believes about Iranian
capabilities.

All that said, the one thing that establishes credibility for Cooper and
Devlin (as well as Cooper and Bishop in their books on the Iranian F-4s and
F-14s) is the impressive array of photos that they have collected. These
include aerial refueling shots of F-4s and Su-24s, as well as formation
shots of F-5s and other aircraft, and a very cool grainy image of an F-14 at
extremely low altitude over the Gulf. That aircraft is in the current
blue/gray paint scheme. They also have a photo of an F-14 with an ATM-54A
training round alongside, photographed in April 2004. That raises an
interesting point--if the Iranians no longer can operate the AIM-54 Phoenix,
then why would they be carrying around training rounds? Clearly they retain
some kind of AIM-54 Phoenix capability.



D

Cooper, Bishop and Devlin have provided credible artiles on the status
of the IRIAF coupled with an warning that those who ignore the
capabilities will be doomed to failure against the Iranians.

The article implies that there are 44 operational Tomcats instead of 28
operational and 29 inoperational as cited by US intelligence sources.
But it was Cooper and Bishop in their 2003 book on the Iraq/Iran war
that stated the original assertion of 28/29 as of F-14's.

The Iranians are willing to invest thousands of man hours in rebuilding
their F-4's and F-14 fleets in an effort to prolong their operational
life. That is because they are not able to buy US made aircraft and
foreign aircraft with US made parts incorporated in them. That is why
they are willing tlo spend all that time and money on refurbishing an
aging aircraft ready for the junk pile to zero hour status.

For the US to attack Iranian military bases with IRIAF fighters sitting
on the tarmac, they would have to expend 300 plus cruise missiles and
then wait another 18 months for new build stocks of cruise missiles to
come from the manufacturer to replenish their supplies. There is no
guarantee that they would be able to destroy all the active Iranian
aircraft as the Iranians would commingle the active aircraft with the
inactive ones in an effort to compel the US to have to destroy all the
aircraft on the base in order to ensure that the fleet of F-4's and
F-14's were no longer a threat thereafter.

Even if we achieved air superority over the Iranians, we will still
have a slog of a battle with the ground elements as they resort to
IED's and suicide bombers against American convoys. And that would add
to the general operational strain our military is under with wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

To achieve air superority would require that we accept the loss of a
few aircraft, including fighter planes and a few prized bombers of B-1
and B-2 vintage. Since we have only 21 B-2's, we cannot lose afford to
lose even one or two as that would add immensely to our long term
attrition rate for that aircraft and we would not have sufficient
numbers of B-2's for a future conflict.

It was surprising that the Pentagon and Iran made a secret agreement
with each other not to allow their aircraft to attack each other's
aircraft in cross border skirmishes. THis helped reduce tension to an
extent. Being a deep reader of Early Bird as that is the first thing I
read when I come to the office, I never saw any such agreement made
with the Iranians by the Pentagon.

If the Pentagon could talk with the Iranians, then President Bush
should follow the UN Secretary General's advice to talk with the
Iranians as it would go a long way toward reducing tensions and then
create a downward spiral in the price of oil.

It was great to hear one Iranian general tell the world that the
opinion of another general who said that Iran would strike Israel in
the event of an American attack on their country was his own personal
opinion and not that of the Iranian military That went a long way
toward assuring Americans that Iran maintains a good command and
control structure over its military like we do.

So, the ball is in the President's court and we will see what he will
do. I believe that an agreable deal can be made between both countries
on the nuclear matter in exchange for the United States to promise an
non-aggression pact against Iran and for Iran will do the same to the
United States. This will go a long way toward reducing fear of
terrorism and to help shorten the long war against terrorism that we
are fighting. It would not be surprising to see both countries resume
diplomatic relations.

Onc more curious tidbit. Did the CIA get the 22 Mig-31's from the
Russians under their dummy arms buying corporation?

James K. Goodwin

DDAY

In response to your mesage, I do have my qualms about Tom Cooper and
Farzad Bishop. Yes, they are historians and military analysts, but the
tone of their reporting seems to imply a bias toward the Iranians. And
they seem top have good access to unimpeachable sources inside Iran.
Were it not for their astute reporting, we would never know what was
going on inside Iran.

But, they seem to give the West a warning, lest they go into combat
with the misconception that it will be a cakewalk. We had assumed the
same in Iraq, once we invaded, the people would rejoice and start
building a new government while hailing us as their saviors. Instead,
we confronted a home grown insurgency that related on bomb making
experts from the army and an inexhausible supply of mortar shells that
were used to make IED's for use against our troop convoys.

We call them insurgents because they attack our troops, but during WW
II, we called them freedom fighters because they put limb and their
families at extreme risk while doing hit and run attacks on the Nazis.

Thanks for correcting me on our supply of curise missiles. It is nice
to have 2000 on hand and to be able to expend 300 in a day or two's
worth of attack.

About the safety of our B-2's, never say never as you never know what
may well happen. Current USAF doctrine will mandate that a hostile
area be raked over by SEAD Vipers, F-15E's dropping bombs on value
targets with cruise missiles hitting air bases to maximize confusion
and F-15C's doing air interdiction of enemy aircraft and all steps
being taken to ensure that the SAM belt is completely eliminated before
the B-2's come. You want to get them all the very first time, but you
never know what may happen. The Golden BB is the thing aircrew fear
the most.

The F-117 was hit by a SAM over Bosnia. And if that can happen, then
it can happen to any kind of aircraft, including stealth aircraft and
bombers. It is better to expect the worse before going out to combat
and to breathe a sigh of relief once arrivng safely at home and finding
out nobody else was lost than to go to combat with an cocky attitude
only to be the one hunted on the ground.

The Iranians have not only Israel in their crosshairs, but Europe, too.
They want to intimidate and create fear among their neighbors,
including our citizens in the United States. They hope antiwar
activists among the politicians, media types and ordinary people will
put immense pressure on George Bush to back off.

And we are not buying it. We may strike, or we may not strike at all.
No one wants a long war of attrition that we have now in Iraq. What
the Iranians need is a good punch to the nose, then they can run over
to Europe for plastic surgery.

Let those clowns in Tehran try to pull a fast one and let them watch
their nuclear ambitions reduced to rubble and the price of oil will
start dropping dramatically as cooperative allies who supply oil will
keep the spigots turned on full force.

Kofi Annan has nothing inside his hat to work a miracle. He is reduced
to beggin on the sidelines. Why? Because he allowed the UN to be used
as a perverted kind of a circus when the poorer nations can gang on a
wealthier nation. That is why it is difficult and almost impossible to
craft reasonable acommodations in the UN.

If those clowns in Tehran have any brains, they will quickly come to
their senses and agree on a sensible solution to their nuclear needs
which will allow them to have a nuclear energy problem as long as the
fissible material is not enriched inside Iran in quantities sufficient
to make nuclear bombs.

Or the B-2's will come screaming down the sky and Eagles and Falcons
(Vipers) will add F-4's, F-5E's and F-14's to their fuselages as kills.

And the mullahs will be reduced to living in holes in the ground just
like Saddam was after seeing his personal 25 billion dollar fortune
reduced to insolvency.


James K. Goodwin

----------
In article , "Thomas A.
Hoffer" wrote:

I'm not an expert in naval hardware as many others are. My expertise lies in
policy, admin, and personnel issues. However, I believe we need to keep in
mind that this aircraft was built with 1960's technology.

Yea....they might have been upgraded...and the Iranians sent many guys my
age to western engineering schools (I knew quite a number in college...good
students too!!) But many a Tomcat was defeated by an aggressor squadron A-4
and F-5 flown by a well trained and seasoned pilot. How well trained are
Iranian pilots and how adept are they in fighting the aircraft?

Doesn't that work both ways? In other words, if the Iranian F-14s are 1960s
technology, doesn't your A-4/F-5 analogy indicate that an older aircraft can
beat a newer one?

I think that the essential point of the article was that we shouldn't
underestimate Iranian aerial capabilities. They have demonstrated an
ability to keep these planes flying for decades.



D

DDAY wrote:
----------

Doesn't that work both ways? In other words, if the Iranian F-14s
are 1960s technology, doesn't your A-4/F-5 analogy indicate that an
older aircraft can beat a newer one?

I think that the essential point of the article was that we shouldn't
underestimate Iranian aerial capabilities. They have demonstrated an
ability to keep these planes flying for decades.



D



If I can jump in here at this point, the Iranian Tomcats are only the tip
of the spear and in many ways are irrelevant. It's been demonstrated
over the last 5 years in that region, that air to air battles aren't won in
the air, but by taking out the opposition's C3 infrastructure. Once
that's been achieved, the best way to not lose your air force is to bury it
in the desert.

While this was a straightforward process with the Iraqis (both times) one
would assume that the Iranians have learned from the failures over the
border.


If it comes to a Hornet Vs Tomcat battle, I'm guessing that somebody's
jumped too far ahead in the game plan.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

Yofuri wrote:

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
interesting artical...i think it will be good practice
for collitition (sp?) forces, to engage and practice
"their art".... remember, the f14 is over 30 yrs old...

And the SA-6 and radar tracking system that took down the first F-117
"Stealth" in Yugoslavia was how old?

And the eyeball-guided AAA in 'Nam?

Never bet your ass that modern technology will trump dedicated
ingenuity, even when fighting against sticks and rocks.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

here here
and
hurumph

But they never listen...

Yofuri wrote:
~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
interesting artical...i think it will be good practice
for collitition (sp?) forces, to engage and practice
"their art".... remember, the f14 is over 30 yrs old...

And the SA-6 and radar tracking system that took down the first F-117
"Stealth" in Yugoslavia was how old?

And the eyeball-guided AAA in 'Nam?

Never bet your ass that modern technology will trump dedicated
ingenuity, even when fighting against sticks and rocks.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***


Not an SA-6, but an SA-3. The 250th Rocket Brigade with SA-3s downed
82-806. Colonel Dani Zoltan's unit also downed F-16CG serial 88-0550
with an SA-3. There is an exhibition in the Yugoslav Aeronautical
Museum detailing the SA-3s of the 250th Rocket Brigade. Col Dani Zoltan
received an award from Milosevic himself during the conflict.

The SA-6 story gained status through the Russian Defence Minister. He
stated Kub and the system is still quoted to this day in relation to
82-806.

During 1999 Colonel Dani Zoltan appeared in a Yugoslav documentary and
revealed that the missile was the SA-3. Again in 2005 Zoltan retold his
story in greater detail.

TJ wrote:
Yofuri wrote:

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

interesting artical...i think it will be good practice
for collitition (sp?) forces, to engage and practice
"their art".... remember, the f14 is over 30 yrs old...


And the SA-6 and radar tracking system that took down the first F-117
"Stealth" in Yugoslavia was how old?

And the eyeball-guided AAA in 'Nam?

Never bet your ass that modern technology will trump dedicated
ingenuity, even when fighting against sticks and rocks.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***



Not an SA-6, but an SA-3. The 250th Rocket Brigade with SA-3s downed
82-806. Colonel Dani Zoltan's unit also downed F-16CG serial 88-0550
with an SA-3. There is an exhibition in the Yugoslav Aeronautical
Museum detailing the SA-3s of the 250th Rocket Brigade. Col Dani Zoltan
received an award from Milosevic himself during the conflict.

The SA-6 story gained status through the Russian Defence Minister. He
stated Kub and the system is still quoted to this day in relation to
82-806.

During 1999 Colonel Dani Zoltan appeared in a Yugoslav documentary and
revealed that the missile was the SA-3. Again in 2005 Zoltan retold his
story in greater detail.

Thanks for the update (backdate?).

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

in going through some old navy paperwork i came across this..
"the f14 requires 50 to 60 maint hrs every hour it flies, while the
super hornet needs 10 to 15 maint hrs for each flight hour...

if true, thats a hell of a difference...

----------
In article .com,
wrote:

tone of their reporting seems to imply a bias toward the Iranians. And
they seem top have good access to unimpeachable sources inside Iran.
Were it not for their astute reporting, we would never know what was
going on inside Iran.

I think this is an overstatement, or at least a misstatement. You are
implying, essentially, that they are tools of the Iranian government. But
that's clearly _not_ the case. In their F-14 book they make it quite clear
that the Iranian revolutionary government has been pretty repressive towards
the air force and the pilots. This is actually understandable, because the
Iranian pilots were trained in the 1970s by the US and naturally a
revolutionary government would be suspicious of these people.

Cooper makes clear that many of his sources are ex-pat Iranians--people who
left the country even as late as the mid-1990s. Not all of these people
would necessarily be against the current government, but a fair number of
them certainly are.

My interpretation of this is that Cooper and Bishop are essentially a couple
of guys who have a major interest in the Iranian air force and are impressed
by it, but certainly not pro-Iran. They could be characterized as "pro
Iranian air force" while "anti Iranian government." But they're more likely
simply buffs who think that the Iranian air force is interesting--and cool.
That doesn't imply sympathy toward the government, or any kind of government
sanction. I think that they've probably built up sources over time and
these sources trust them to greater or lesser extent.

My concern is less with their bias than with their analytical methods. Bias
is easily detectable, but methods are not. I don't know how careful they
are at checking their information. I'm not saying that they're bad at it,
only that I don't know how carefully they check it. For instance, if one
person tells them something do they report it, or do they only report it if
they can confirm it from another source? We don't know that. Fortunately,
some of their claims are proven by their photographs. We can tell, for
instance, that Iran was still showing off its F-14s as recently as 2004.
And although they did not put an AIM-54 missile on display, they did display
a training round, which obviously implies that they still train to fire
these missiles.


Thanks for correcting me on our supply of curise missiles. It is nice
to have 2000 on hand and to be able to expend 300 in a day or two's
worth of attack.

The exact number is classified, but I believe that the last time I saw a
discussion of this in a military journal they said that the number was "over
2600."


area be raked over by SEAD Vipers, F-15E's dropping bombs on value
targets with cruise missiles hitting air bases to maximize confusion
and F-15C's doing air interdiction of enemy aircraft and all steps
being taken to ensure that the SAM belt is completely eliminated before
the B-2's come. You want to get them all the very first time, but you
never know what may happen. The Golden BB is the thing aircrew fear
the most.

I don't think there is any point to playing armchair general and positing
highly speculative scenarios about how a war would be conducted.

However, the article that I refer to does make some interesting points that
the Iranians have managed to keep a lot of vintage American equipment in
service despite all odds. The one thing about the F-14 is that its Phoenix
missiles would make it a threat from long range. They could stay well
within the air defense umbrella and fire at distant American targets. If
the article is correct and at least a couple of dozen aircraft remain
operational, then they could present a problem to any American air campaign.
The threat to US aircraft is certainly greater from SAMs than aircraft, but
that has been the case for decades.




D

In article .com, "~^
beancounter ~^" wrote:

in going through some old navy paperwork i came across this..
"the f14 requires 50 to 60 maint hrs every hour it flies, while the
super hornet needs 10 to 15 maint hrs for each flight hour...

if true, thats a hell of a difference...

Those are more or less the numbers that I've heard.
BTW, the maint hrs/flt hr is still going down.
It's lower on the E/F than the C/D (so I've heard).

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur