Iraqi AF victories during operation Desert Storm

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post25 Oct 2015, 23:20

old.iraqi.air.force wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Wether hit the groung or was hit by SAM at the end its the same one the EF-111A claimed it to be Mirage

Dear let me explain something to you trough my experience and i hope you will take it from me as a friend or brother (with great admiration of your good knowledge).
Hit by SAM it's not the same hit the ground, because the first one means the pilot was in the vicinity of the air base, the second means the aircraft was at engage and each aircraft has IFF and the pilot must started before he take-off, so the F-111 or the F-15 will never ID the Iraqi MIG-23 or MIG-29 as Mirage F-1 under any condition even if they were carrying Remora ECM pods, the U.S F-15s has a great radar system able to ID the type of any aircraft (condition the other side opened his radar) in this case no engagements with out open radar, so this means the F-15 were able to ID the aircraft which it should be Mirage F-1 since Capt.Najim clashed with F-111 and this was on the early hour when the war began and that MIG-23ML took-off almost at the dawn 0500 which is mean most communication units and radar being hit and the opportunities to coordinate with air defense became low, and the opportunity to hit a friendly targets became largest and this is what happened to him.

Not necessary ... In Fact , Graeter first victory ( which was claimed to be a Mirage but I think it was a MiG-29 ) ; was never Identified by Graeter F-15C radar as a Mirage , it was the AWACS that classified it later as a Mirage
Offline
User avatar

old.iraqi.air.force

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 235
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013, 20:03
  • Location: Europe

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 02:13

oldiaf wrote:
old.iraqi.air.force wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Wether hit the groung or was hit by SAM at the end its the same one the EF-111A claimed it to be Mirage

Dear let me explain something to you trough my experience and i hope you will take it from me as a friend or brother (with great admiration of your good knowledge).
Hit by SAM it's not the same hit the ground, because the first one means the pilot was in the vicinity of the air base, the second means the aircraft was at engage and each aircraft has IFF and the pilot must started before he take-off, so the F-111 or the F-15 will never ID the Iraqi MIG-23 or MIG-29 as Mirage F-1 under any condition even if they were carrying Remora ECM pods, the U.S F-15s has a great radar system able to ID the type of any aircraft (condition the other side opened his radar) in this case no engagements with out open radar, so this means the F-15 were able to ID the aircraft which it should be Mirage F-1 since Capt.Najim clashed with F-111 and this was on the early hour when the war began and that MIG-23ML took-off almost at the dawn 0500 which is mean most communication units and radar being hit and the opportunities to coordinate with air defense became low, and the opportunity to hit a friendly targets became largest and this is what happened to him.

Not necessary ... In Fact , Graeter first victory (which was claimed to be a Mirage but I think it was a MiG-29) ; was never Identified by Graeter F-15C radar as a Mirage , it was the AWACS that classified it later as a Mirage

Let me clarify something here based on your thought (if you mean Capt.Graeter which you believe who shot down Capt. Sabah Motlag and then assisted the U.S EF-111A vs Capt.Najim) this is not accurate.
1.There is a large period of time between Capt. Sabah Motlag take-off and Capt.Najim approximately one hour and 30 minutes (because both pilot with Capt.Nafie) under control the 1st sector of air defense and this sector cover over a wide area started from (north of Baghdad-south of Kut+Hamrin and north to Salah al-Din and even as far to the south the Highway 160km) till H3, so the air defense sector will not order two Mirages to take-off since the first line to the MIG-25 and the second line to the MIG-29. And the events on the ground are very clear, between Capt.Sabah Motlag and Capt.Nafie took-off about 30 minutes and Capt.Najim 30 minutes as well..etc
In this case: does Capt.Graeter had enough fuel to engage the first aircraft and then travel to north west H2 to assist the U.S EF-111A vs Capt.Najim after one hour and 30 minutes?
2.As i confirmed before Capt. Steve Tate who shot down Capt. Sabah Motlag and this video below shows a clear statement by Capt.Steve about that engagements (which is indeed and exactly what happened), so what Capt.Graeter was in that combat sortie No.2 or 3,4 ?
The interview start at 11:10
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 09:18

No .. I know Capt. Steve Tate was the one who shut downed Lt. Col. Sabah Motlag ... Capt. Graeter was the one ( in my opinion ) who shut downed Capt. Emad or Maj. Tariq ( MiG-29 ) over Talha then proceeded north to H2 .... The other MiG-29 was shut downed by Maj. Kelk
Last edited by oldiaf on 26 Oct 2015, 09:47, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 09:39

All the above is really very interesting. However does it not better fit into the Iraqi losses thread?

Anyway, back to the F 111.

The one damaged with tanker was F 111 70-2384. IMHO there is really little reason to doubt it.

However two more F 111 suffered combat damage in the early stages of DS. This should have happened around Balad AF (both or one? – I do not know).

Yet despite having looked for detailed info I was unable to find any such as: the sort of damage suffered and the serials of the aircraft. Mind you with the F 111 out of service since years hardly any sensitive info would be compromised.

Until more is known about the two F 111 damaged it will be impossible to cross check them with Iraqi air to air claims.
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 09:46

han9 wrote:All the above is really very interesting. However does it not better fit into the Iraqi losses thread?

Anyway, back to the F 111.

The one damaged with tanker was F 111 70-2384. IMHO there is really little reason to doubt it.

However two more F 111 suffered combat damage in the early stages of DS. This should have happened around Balad AF (both or one? – I do not know).

Yet despite having looked for detailed info I was unable to find any such as: the sort of damage suffered and the serials of the aircraft. Mind you with the F 111 out of service since years hardly any sensitive info would be compromised.

Until more is known about the two F 111 damaged it will be impossible to cross check them with Iraqi air to air claims.

The MiG-23ML Squadron 63 was in Balad and 2 MiG-23MLs claimed damage to 2 F-111 near Balad
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 10:26

oldiaf wrote:The MiG-23ML Squadron 63 was in Balad and 2 MiG-23MLs claimed damage to 2 F-111 near Balad


Such should suffice to confirm the claims as damaged.

More details on the Iraqi claims would be most appreciated.

Last but not least: please, please is there anybody out there who could provide some details on the damaged F 111?
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 10:55

The third F-111 was damaged by MiG-29 near Nukhaib ... Along with B-52 by the same MiG-29 ... The B-52 is the same that was claimed damaged by F-4G AGM-88 and nicknamed InHarms way
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 12:03

That is OK – except the only third known damaged F 111 is the one damaged in an in flight refuelling incident.

For this reason the MiG 29 claim can not be view as even indirectly confirmed by US sources, though it is known that some F 111 had to use all tricks in the know of their crews and countermeasures they had to shake off pursuing MiG 29s.

Back to MiG 23 vs F 111. Are there some details on the Iraqi pilots claims such as for example a narrative of how they engaged them?
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 12:07

han9 wrote:That is OK – except the only third known damaged F 111 is the one damaged in an in flight refuelling incident.

For this reason the MiG 29 claim can not be view as even indirectly confirmed by US sources, though it is known that some F 111 had to use all tricks in the know of their crews and countermeasures they had to shake off pursuing MiG 29s.

Back to MiG 23 vs F 111. Are there some details on the Iraqi pilots claims such as for example a narrative of how they engaged them?

One of the pilots name is known Hossam Sami ... The other one is unknown because he still lives in Iraq
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 22:58

han9 wrote:Last but not least: please, please is there anybody out there who could provide some details on the damaged F 111?


A DOD 1993 survey listed this for battle damage (Date is date of incident) :

EF-111A 66-0023 14 Feb 91 20TFW Lost
F-111F 70-0442 17 Jan 91 48TFW Damaged - 1.5" X .75" hole right side wing glove.
F-111F 70-0392 17 Jan 91 48TFW Damaged - Shrapnel underneath #2 engine burner section.
F-111F 70-2401 17 Jan 91 48TFW Damaged - Groove in windscreen, 1" hole in tail.
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 10:02

Thx and a BIG one to add to that. It appears all the damage was from single or just a few shrapnel pieces. IMO not from AAM which should have left the target peppered but rather individual fragments from AAA shell bursts or hits / marks from individual small calibre rounds (such as groove in the windscreen). So no confirmation of any hits by IrAF MiGs after all. However the Iraqi claims did not come from thin air. F 111 crews had to put considerbale effort in shaking off pursuing MiGs though the pilots of the latter were rather over optimistic when it came to the results of their actions.
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 10:19

han9 wrote:Thx and a BIG one to add to that. It appears all the damage was from single or just a few shrapnel pieces. IMO not from AAM which should have left the target peppered but rather individual fragments from AAA shell bursts or hits / marks from individual small calibre rounds (such as groove in the windscreen). So no confirmation of any hits by IrAF MiGs after all. However the Iraqi claims did not come from thin air. F 111 crews had to put considerbale effort in shaking off pursuing MiGs though the pilots of the latter were rather over optimistic when it came to the results of their actions.

Because of powerful ECM , Chaff and flares ; the missiles were exploding away from the aircrafts , thats why only small shrapnels damaged the planes .
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 11:05

han9 wrote:Thx and a BIG one to add to that. It appears all the damage was from single or just a few shrapnel pieces. IMO not from AAM which should have left the target peppered but rather individual fragments from AAA shell bursts or hits / marks from individual small calibre rounds (such as groove in the windscreen). So no confirmation of any hits by IrAF MiGs after all. However the Iraqi claims did not come from thin air. F 111 crews had to put considerbale effort in shaking off pursuing MiGs though the pilots of the latter were rather over optimistic when it came to the results of their actions.


Yes this doesn't mean they were not AAMs prox fusing at distance from expendables.
Offline

nikolaos

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2015, 07:01

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 11:24

So, are these Iraqi claims somehow "confirmed"?
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 11:30

nikolaos wrote:So, are these Iraqi claims somehow "confirmed"?

It was confirmed to be combat damage ... Not necessary from enemy aircrafts
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests