Cat peeking out of the bag?

Well, I actually understand the scepticism very well: I'm still more often
than not sceptic as well when I hear something new. After all, for over 20
years we've all been teached by all possible "authoritative" sources in the
media that there was no air war there.

But the fact remains that none of these authoriative sources ever seriously
researched about that war. None even attempted to contact the surviving
combatants and obviously nobody attempted to get the US documents. Even such
authors like Mike Spick are until today convinced that MiG-21 and F-5 never
met in combat (see his corresponding article in AFM magazine, earlier this
year); Jon Lake was explaining about F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54 combo being
considered a costly failure and kind of a "lots of balooney" somewhere else
too; Yefim Gordon is as silent as a grave about that war. So, what should an
average reader do when somebody appears with a completely different story?

Now, what might be the reasons for this "silence"?

In the case of French and Russians, I guess it was their (largely) negative
experiences.

Russians got a lots of their flying stuff chopped out of the skies - by
"incapable & crazy Mullahs". Even their much vaunted MiG-25BM Foxbats were
shot down (by "non-operational" F-14s and "sabotaged" AIM-54s), Tu-22s and
Kh-22s were not functioning but were shot down too (not only by Tomcats, but
also by MIM-23s), MiG-27s and Kh-29s were functioning but shot down by F-14s
and F-4Es nevertheless. The list is only getting longer over the time (and
includes 40 air-to-air kills against different versions of MiG-23s within
the first six months of the war).... So, why publish about such stuff at the
times of the Cold War - when Foxbat was considered such a threat, just for
example? Or, why admit in the public that until today 99% of RuAF officers
never heard about something called "Combat Tree/Clear Horizont/Second View"?

Being clueless or not successful is not something the Russians are ready to
boast around... (well, who is?)

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Soviets were then rather busy with the
dissolution of the USSR, and then with attempting to sell their weapons to
Iran (without any significant success). Besides, serious, investigative and
objective aviation journalism about the combat service of their aircraft in
foreign air forces is still rather a rarity in Russia and the Ukraine until
our days...

The French experienced pretty much the same: they were putting ever more
advanced stuff into their Mirages sold to Iraq, and these failed and failed
and failed against IRIAF F-14s. Eventually, over 30 were shot down in air
combats alone: they never found a way to jam the AWG-9, just for example.
After costly attempts of overwhelming F-14s with multiple MiG-23s, they
never attempted something similar with Mirages... Another example: In that
highly-publicized "Tanker War", out of over 800 AM.39 Exocets spent by
Iraqis only some 200 hit. Most of their targets were huge, slow and
non-manoeuvreable tankers: the experience showed, however, that even these
could outmanoeuvre Exocets if there was sufficient warning. The experience
showed also that AWG-9/AIM-54-combo could shot down the Exocet. In total,
only a quarter of missiles fired between 1981 and 1988 hit home, and hardly
more than 100 ships were sunk. Most of these were surplus tankers the owners
of which were foremost interested to cash insurance but to repair them. The
remaining list is also long.

So, what should either of these two boast about?

In the case of the USA, I guess it was the politics. The occupation of the
US embassy in Tehran left a deep scar on US-Iranian relations, and the
attack on US Marines in Beirut was simply too much to bear - so much in
fact, that all the clandestine and extra-legal relations between Washington
and Tehran were subsequently discontinued. After the war Iraq became the
"star" with invasion of Kuwait... Only now, 16 years after the end of that
war is Iran becoming interesting again, meanwhile taking over as "public
enemy #1". So, why should have any US author attempted to research about the
performance of US technology in Iranian hands in earlier times?

So, as indicated above, it remains a mystery to me: Why is the US intel
failing to inform the military circles about what was going on? Why haven't
people like Pechs - who might have been sent to a war against Iran and risk
their skin while facing an enemy that was badly underestimated - been
informed?

The info was - and remains - available: people like USAF Maj. Ronald
Bergquist (author of "The Role of Airpower in the Iran-Iraq War" - today he
should be General somewhere in Pentagon) were studying the air war carefully
in the early 1980s, and understood what was going on. Even such publications
like AirInternational were reporting about the use of AIM-54 as late as of
1983 or 1984. Then everything changed, and - "suddenly" - the nature of
reporting in the public changed. Suddenly, that war was not interesting and
"nothing interesting" (citate from Dr. Alfred Price's "War in the Fourth
Dimension") was going on any more.

Could it be this development was influenced by the politics too?

--
************************************************** ***********************
Tom Cooper
Freelance aviation journalist

Author:
- Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

- Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6550

- Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

- African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************