"Kenneth Williams" wrote in message
m...

Now I'm really confused. I got out two fairly new aircraft reference
books to verify the aircraft listed and both list the Su-27 in Syrian
inventory. These books a

- the Directory of Military Aircraft of the World 2001 by Peter March
- the Pocket Guide to Military Aircraft and the World's Airforces 2001
by David Donald

Kenneth,
the editors that prepare such books do not research in the true sence of
that word: they lack the time for doing anything similar, and instead depend
on the informations from other sources. They instead use other "sources of
reference" for compiling their work. In the case of the "Su-27s in Syria"
topic, however one turns it, the basic information is that from the AFM
published in 2000.

There are frequently such cases. Let me offer you a brilliant example.

I'm sure that you have hard about that well-known Iraqi claim one of their
Mi-24s has shot down an Iranian F-4?

This claim was originally published on 27 October 1982, by the Iraqi
magazine "Baghdad Observer," a publication controlled by the former Iraqi
regime, published in Baghdad, and targeting Western reporters underway in
Iraq.

In the report with the title "The Day of the Helicopter Gunship" an air
battle was briefly described that supposedly developed several days earlier,
and in which one Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter had shot down an Iranian F-4
Phantom. According to the "Baghdad Observer," the engagement happened "north
of the Eyn-e Khosh area" and the Phantom was destroyed by a "next
generation, long-range, AT-6 Sprial ATGM," fired by a Mi-24 helicopter
specially prepared and brought to Iraq by the Soviets in order to test the
AT-6 missile in the air-to-air mode.

Ever since, this claim has been making rounds in many Western, Ukrainian,
and Russian publications. The basis of this reporting was the fact that the
article from the Baghdad Observer was forwarded by the FBIS. FBIS is Foreign
Broadcast Information Service, a Washington based company, scanning the
press, TV&Radio reports all around the world. On 28 October, 1982, FBIS
issued its Communiqué No. 885, FBIS-MEA-82-209, on the page E2 of which one
can find the forwarded report from the Baghdad Observer.

This story then spread approximately in the following order:
- Steven J. Zaloga & George J. Balin, Anti-Tank Helicopters, Osprey, 1986,
p. 36; "Hind, Overpowering or Overrated?," Air International, May 1984, p.
252;
- David C. Isby, Weapons And Tactics of the Soviet Army, Jane's, 2nd Ed.,
1988, p. 442;
- John Everett-Heath, Soviet Helicopters, 2nd Ed., Jane's, 1988, p. 131;
- Steven J. Zaloga, "ATA: Helicopter Dogfighting", Mi Seitelman; Ed.,
Advanced Combat Helicopters, Evolving Roles, Motorbooks Int'l, 1988, p. 10;
- John Fricker, "Russian Round-Up", Air International, September 1989, p.
131:
- John Fricker, "Recent Soviet Rotary-wing Revelations", Air International,
January 1990, p. 19;
- John W. R. Taylor & Kenneth Munson, "Gallery of Middle East Airpower", Air
Force Magazine, October 1992, pp. 68-69;
- Yossef Bodansky, "Iraq's Rotary Assets", Part 1, Defense Helicopter World,
Vol. 9, No. 5, October-November 1990, p. 24;

Each of these authors and publications actually only repeated the original
claim: they did not add any new informations to it, their authors did not
start a separate research to this topic, trying to locate the eventual
Russian or Iraqi crews, or to find out if the Russians really tested the
AT-6 as AAM in Iraq, or trying to find the eventual Iranian crews. They only
"forwarded" the same info originally supplied by the Baghdad Observer, and
forwarded to the West by the FBIS.

By 1990 there was only one person (not me) trying to find out what happened.
So, after the end of the Cold War the man in question (a highly experienced
US Army attack-helicopter pilot, especially interested in helicopters in air
combat), went out to try to find what happened. He interviewed several
former Soviet dignitaries, trying to find out mo but there was nothing
more. No additional details; no gun-camera pictures, no names, nothing.

During the 1990s this claim then became "en vogue" in Polish, Ukrainian and
Russian publications too, the authors of which for an unknown reason started
thinking that the original source for the publication of this claim would be
the "US intelligence" (see Y. Gordon's article about the Mi-24 in the WAPJ
37). This "US intelligence", however, was nothing more than the FBIS. A raw
confirmation for this is Gordon even went so far to explain that during the
IPGW (Iraq-iran War), there was a specific number of air-to-air combats
involving Iraqi and Iranian helicopters etc. But, this specific number was
nothing else but the summary of the figures mentioned in all the reprots
forwarded by FBIS during the whole IPGW: i.e. the whole research about the
helicopter warfare between Iraq and Iran actually consisted of somebody
there calculating how many helicopter vs helicopter engagements were
reported in different Iraqi and Iranian press communiqués that were later
forwarded by the FBIS.

A true "science", isn't it?

But, that's not all. As everybody better informed here should know, the FBIS
is _no_ "US intelligence,": it is an information service that compiles
reports from all possible foreign media sources and broadcasts, and reports
these to its clients in the USA. The FBIS neither confirms nor denies
reports it is forwarding: it simply reports what was reported by somebody
else. This fact is, however, was completely ignored in this case by almost
everybody involved. In fact, Y. Gordon went even so far to explain that the
Iranian F-4 in question was shot down by that Mi-24 on 27 October 1982 -
i.e. the date the original report had actually been published for the first
time in Baghdad Observer, which in turn obviously described that the
engagement had happened several days earlier! Gordon, however, was not the
only one: several other Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish authors did exactly
the same, with the slight difference that specific authors explained it
wasn't the AT-6 that was used, but a salvo of unguided rockets, or gunfire
or whatever else.

However one turns it, this claim is widely been accepted as "authentic," and
considered as "confirmed" even by observers with immense and undisputable
knowledge about helicopters and anti-armour warfare, or former dignitaries
of the Soviet Air Force and airspace industry. Most Russian and Ukrainian
students use it to "confirm" the capabilities and firepower of the Mi-24
attack helicopter and the AT-6 missile, even if actually very few people
know anything about the background of the claim, or its initial source,
while others are obviously ignoring these, while maintaining that the claim
was confirmed by "US intelligence." Significantly, even Western armoured
warfare experts who are usually sceptical to accept any kind of "Arab"
claims - especially for destroying such an advanced product of Western
technology like an F-4 Phantom II fighter-bomber - have shown more than
ready to accept that this incident really happened. Considering the number
of sources and their authoritativeness, it seems therefore not easy to
dispute anything in this context.

However, a research with the help of the former Iraqi Mi-25 (that was the
version delivered to Iraq) pilots showed that none of them - not even those
that flew Mi-25s in the given area in the given time in 1982 - ever heard
about any such claim. Research with the help of former and active Iranian
pilots, as well as IRIAF records showed no F-4s being lost at or near the
given time and place. In addition, research with the help of the US Army
files about the testing of the AT-6 (released according to a FOIA inquiry
procedure) showed that the weapon wouldn't be able to hit a target moving as
fast at all. The Russians have tested plenty of their equipment in Iraq
against Iran: but, no Mi-24s, and especially no Mi-24s armed with AT-6s. The
AT-6 was also never delivered to Iraq.

In short: there is no kind of firm evidence that this has ever happened.

Quite on the contrary, given the political situation in Baghdad at the
time - especially after tremendous defeats in the spring of 1982, and in the
face of heavy losses sustained during the Iranian offensives in autumn
1982 - there is a very plausible explanation for the claim being published
in the Baghdad Observer of 27 October 1982... You can find the full story in
the volume 104 of the AirEnthusiast magazine, published in March this year.


And so, there is a similar situation with the Su-27s in Syria: the AFM
published it; the AFM is considered an "authoritative" source; the
deliveries of Su-27s to Syria are "logical" and "plausbile"; and so every
editor of such books concludes that the SyAAF "must" have 14 Su-27s.

A closer examination of the case proved, however, that nothing of this was
the case. The original eyewitnesses were not wrong, they have seen the
Su-27s in Syrian markings on two Syrian air bases, but these were not in
service with the SyAAF. It was then on the author of the report to have the
guts to correct his own report, and this was done. There was a
misunderstanding of what the people have seen, and this misunderstanding was
now corrected. Things of this kind happen: thanks Lord, nothing bad came out
of this one.

These books also fail to list the Su-25 in Iranian inventory.

The situation is very similar as above: bear in mind that the manuscript for
a book can be adapted for the last time at best some six months before the
book is being published. Now, given that the Su-25s entered service with the
IRGCAF only very recently, and both of the books you mentioned were
published in 2001... well, that's self-explanatory.

I see you disagree Tom, but every book and online source I've seen
says otherwise. The facts seem to be that 14 Su-27s were purchased by
Syria in 2000 and remain there, operational by the Syrian AF.

No way. To be honest, I can't care less about what some books report: they
are of absolutely no relevance in this case.

The fact is that the Su-27s were sent to Syria four times, of which two
times painted in Syrian markings. The fact is that the sighting of these
aircraft in Syria was explained as if they would be in service. The fact is
that there are no Su-27s in Syria since 2001, and the fact is that the SyAAF
operates no Su-27s. That's all that counts here.

I also can't find any reference material that supports your claim that
the Iranian AF actually flies the Su-25. It is my belief that the
aircraft are kept as war trophies and used for propaganda purposes.

This is your belief, I don't have a problem with this, but have you seen at
least a picture of an IRGCAF Su-25?

No, you have not. So, your belief remains your belief, and you will only be
able to continue talking about beliefs unless one of the photos is published
somewhere, and so you get the facts.

If not can you provide some information on the training units for this
aircraft and/or proof of operation?

This will be done, no need to worry about. You will, however, hopefully
understand that a "hobby" of this kind is a pretty expensive one, so there
is a need to make at least some kind of money first when publishing such
stuff.

What can currently be published is this:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_249.shtml

If you attempt to carefully compare these photos with any other published so
far about this parade you will hopefully notice the difference.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585