I've just finished reading the following book about the F-14 in Iranian
hands:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1841767875.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

It is a well written account which is claimed to be based upon extensive
research and talks with Iranian, and some Iraqi, aircrew.

With the caveat of the usual inflation of kills when talking with "those who
where there", particularly in what concerns BVR kills, the book is
consistent with the many leaked details that have been emerging for several
years.

For those less attentive to the complexities of the Middle East politics and
operations, it can be a bit of an eye opener, but there are plenty of people
around, from the "air-warrior" community, that have claimed in print and on
the net that they had interesting times they cannot speak openly about.

To cut the introduction short, and getting to the theme I'd like to see
discussed...

It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher
than that, but let's stay cautious.

The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long Iraq-Iran
war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted
types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often relayed
as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling to
go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while
not being so shy towards the Eagles. Reports have come out - both recent and
old - of Iraqi pilots saying that the F-14s were the Iranian aircraft they
most feared...

So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving the
Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not?

_____________
José Herculano

> It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
> with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher
> than that, but let's stay cautious.

Isn't there also evidence to suggest that the Iranians used the Tomcat as
an airborne warning and control aircraft?

> The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long Iraq-Iran
> war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted
> types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often relayed
> as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling to
> go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while
> not being so shy towards the Eagles.

Re the Iraqis purported preference to engage "the Eagles," I assume this
refers to F-15s. I was not aware the Iranians purchased any F-15s. Of
course I could be wrong. Can anybody weigh in on this point?

"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote in message
...
>> It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
>> with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are
>> higher
>> than that, but let's stay cautious.
>
> Isn't there also evidence to suggest that the Iranians used the Tomcat as
> an airborne warning and control aircraft?
>
>> The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long
>> Iraq-Iran
>> war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted
>> types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often
>> relayed
>> as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling
>> to
>> go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while
>> not being so shy towards the Eagles.
>
> Re the Iraqis purported preference to engage "the Eagles," I assume this
> refers to F-15s. I was not aware the Iranians purchased any F-15s. Of
> course I could be wrong. Can anybody weigh in on this point?

he said 'during the 1st Gulf War' not the Iran-Iraq war.

And while I will admit never taking a good look at the subject, everything I
have read re the Iranian F-14s says that they had a lot of trouble keeping
the aircraft and missles maintained once the US techs left. Because of this
the few flyable F-14s left at wars end were pretty much AWAC only. 130 A2A
kills sounds like an awful lot to me.

>> It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
>> with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher
>> than that, but let's stay cautious.

I would not even buy 1/3 that total! I don't think the Iraquies had that many
planes to shoot down.

Sparky

José Herculano wrote:
> I've just finished reading the following book about the F-14 in
> Iranian hands:
>
> http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1841767875.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
>
> It is a well written account which is claimed to be based upon
> extensive research and talks with Iranian, and some Iraqi, aircrew.
[snip]

Tom Cooper has been a pretty regular poster here; he may well be along to
defend his statistics.

> So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform)
> giving the Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than
> performance?

AFAIK, no one within the Navy has ever claimed that the F-14 is being
retired due to inferior performance. The decision has always been framed as
being driven by cost, reliability, and maintainability issues.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

> AFAIK, no one within the Navy has ever claimed that the F-14 is being
> retired due to inferior performance. The decision has always been framed
as
> being driven by cost, reliability, and maintainability issues.
>
Well, that and the "F/A-18 mafia"....

>It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air
>F-14 kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills.

Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
power.

Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise
missile or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy
to hit with a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.

Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
retiring all Tomcats. The MiG-23 has long hit the scapyard most places.
Remaining F-111 has been deported to a place where planes normally fly
upside-down. The Tornado flies only because anything else is better than
an F-104.

> Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
> Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
> power.

Iranian sources claim that only 12 were sabotaged, and those were later
fixed with parts out of that Iran-Contra deal.

> Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
> targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile
> or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with
> a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.

Well, most of the kills were against MiGs... true it seems they were not
maneuvering much, but most BVR kills are like that.

> Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
> trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious place
> in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is

Tell you what... the swing wing spar IS the thoughest piece of metal on the
Tomcat. You can claim the bird is prone to battle damage everywhere BUT on
the swing-wing mechanism.

_____________
José Herculano

>Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
>Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
>power.

Ya I didn't know quite how to mention that I "might" have met some one who
"might" have been involved in making sure that the Buffalo didn't work before
he left that country. I have heard from fighter guys that in close while the
motor is running that the buff can be a formibidal weapon that can make a
pretty good turn. But then they were probably looking for an excuse to use the
thing. It wasn't designed for the close in fight but only as a back up to
something better.
Sparky

> he left that country. I have heard from fighter guys that in close while
> the
> motor is running that the buff can be a formibidal weapon that can make a
> pretty good turn. But then they were probably looking for an excuse to use
> the
> thing. It wasn't designed for the close in fight but only as a back up to
> something better.

And it has one BIG fragmentation warhead. There are some pretty wild claims
on that book about multiple kills with a single missile. Like Iraqis flying
close formation and the missile bagging the leader AND the wingman. Sounds
fishy to me, but...

But even when the motor is spent, that thing is coming balistic at you at
Mach 4 plus... it should be hard to vacate its ballpark. I heard the thing
does 18 G turns while motoring.
_____________
José Herculano

ISTR the 54 had a continuous rod warhead. Dodging a Mach 4 missile
coming down at you from high above seems sort of problematical -
unless it's leaving a smoke trail how do you see it coming? Sure, you
got some radar warning - you hope - but the main defense seems to be
a) the wetware controlling the launch sequence screwed up and b)
system reliability. Employed within proper parameters with a weapons
system maintained within specs - even the Hughes radar Falcon could
hit the target. Glad I'm retired, since similar systems to the 54 are
becoming all too prevalent. W(Way)BVR takes a lot of fun out of the
game.
Walt BJ

"José Herculano" wrote:

> > Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
> > Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
> > power.
>
> Iranian sources claim that only 12 were sabotaged, and those were later
> fixed with parts out of that Iran-Contra deal.
>
> > Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
> > targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise missile
> > or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to hit with
> > a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.
>
> Well, most of the kills were against MiGs... true it seems they were not
> maneuvering much, but most BVR kills are like that.

<snip>

As with virtually everything else, Tamas is full of it. The AIM-54 was tested
against maneuvering fighter targets during its development and nailed a QF-86
drone pulling 6g (the missile pulled 16g to get it), as well as having several
successful tests against multiple fighter-sized targets (BQM-34, QT-33 or QF-9
drones, the latter augmented to MiG-21 RCS). Fighters weren't the primary
target it was designed around, but it's certainly capable of killing them,
especially with a BVR 'bolt from the blue' with a missile coming down from
above.

Guy

Jose-<< So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving
the
Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not? >><BR><BR>

Don't think that is the issue, that of giving the thumbs down vs a 'thumbs up'.
The design is old, the tooling is essentially gone, the chance for a modern
Tomcat was lost in the 80s when Reagan was POTUS and $$ was everywhere.

The AIM-54 and F-14 are a matched set. Lose one, lose the other. Altho a good
missile in the correct envelope, it was designed to knock down Soviet Bombers.
Considering today's and future 'threats', I think the AIM-120 and a follow-on
are a better, cheaper and more compatible to more A/C, solution.

The F-14B, C, strike Tomcat would have been great and 'may' have precluded the
development of the F-18F, but it wasn't and it didn't. The F-14 is history, the
same way the F-8 was when I got my wings(1974), the same way the F-4 was when I
entered my Department HD tour.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Tamas-<< Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
retiring all Tomcats. >><BR><BR>

It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14
squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.

It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available
technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics, ****poor
engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30).

BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Laura O''Leary" > wrote in message news:...
> Well, the bigger issues are requirements and cost. The requirement for a
> fighter to be able to engage and destroy a target at the long range of the
> Phoenix just isn't there anymore. The ROE is too restrictive to allow for
> the engagement of targets at that range. The cold war days of protecting
> the fleet from the big bad Soviet bombers are long gone. As for the cost,
> the F-14 is the highest in maintenance man-hours per flight in carrier
> aircraft. (The EA-6B is the next highest in maint man-hours and will
> follow the Tomcat into the Super Hornet world). Besides the maintenance
> man-hours, the availability and mission capability ratings of the Toms
> isn't nearly as good as the Super Hornet. While the Tomcat does do a
> fantastic job filling the role of a pseudo-medium range bomber, the recent
> trend is to deliver smaller war heads to reduce collateral damage. But,
> the days of going out and carrying in excess of twenty 500-pound dumb
> bombs have already passed. The joint battlespace doesn't require the CV to
> deliver that type and quantity anymore. The Air Force has to fill the
> role of heavy bombers which would carry numerous PGMs and the Navy has the
> Super Hornet to attempt to fill the pseudo-medium bomber which would also
> use PGMs. In summary, the Tomcat is a great aircraft whose day has
> unfortunately passed, but current requirements and fiscal responsibilities
> make the Tomcat no longer viable.
>
> "Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air
>>>F-14 kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills.
>>
>> Except for the fact that CIA ordered US ground crew in Iran to sabotage
>> Phoenix related gear in Tomcats' radars as soon as the shah fell from
>> power.
>>
>> Otherwise the AIM54 was never meant to be used against small and agile
>> targets like fighter bombers, which Iraq had. In contrast a cruise
>> missile or a bomb-laden Tu-95 cannot do the immelman, so they are easy to
>> hit with a big and necessarily sluggish missile from 70 nm.
>>
>> Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
>> trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
>> place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
>> retiring all Tomcats. The MiG-23 has long hit the scapyard most places.
>> Remaining F-111 has been deported to a place where planes normally fly
>> upside-down. The Tornado flies only because anything else is better than
>> an F-104.
>>
>
>

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...

> tube type avionics


Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ?
(the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!)

TWT's are "tubes" that are encased in steel (think
of microwave oven magnetrons). That was the only
technology at the time that could handle the power
levels required for the radar packages being used.

The other technology for VHF / UHF radios (NAV and
air to air, air to ground, etc), were solid state
designs with NO tubes.

Also the FGC's were undeniably solid state, NON tube
technology.

To be specific, references of "tubes" are as a
circuit switching or amplification device - not
as a display device (ie. a PFD, or MFD).

"rob" > wrote in message >...
> he said 'during the 1st Gulf War' not the Iran-Iraq war.

To many people, that is exactly the same thing:
1st gulf war = Iran-Iraq
2nd gulf war = kicking Saddam out of Kuwait
3rd gulf war = Bush vs Hussein - the feud continues

Rob

KingPin-<< Presumably this refers to the TWT's in the radar
system, the EW/ECM systems and not the C3 equipment ?
(the Tomcat was certainly not Korean War vintage!) >><BR><BR>

The (h)AWG-9 was old technology that was prevelent in early radars seen on the
F-4(AWG-10), never really modified when available technology was present.

Poor reliability, many MH to maintain.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"José Herculano" > wrote in message >...
> I've just finished reading the following book about the F-14 in Iranian
> hands:
>
> http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1841767875.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
>
> It is a well written account which is claimed to be based upon extensive
> research and talks with Iranian, and some Iraqi, aircrew.
>
> With the caveat of the usual inflation of kills when talking with "those who
> where there", particularly in what concerns BVR kills, the book is
> consistent with the many leaked details that have been emerging for several
> years.
>
> For those less attentive to the complexities of the Middle East politics and
> operations, it can be a bit of an eye opener, but there are plenty of people
> around, from the "air-warrior" community, that have claimed in print and on
> the net that they had interesting times they cannot speak openly about.
>
> To cut the introduction short, and getting to the theme I'd like to see
> discussed...
>
> It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14 kills,
> with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded claims are higher
> than that, but let's stay cautious.
>
> The Iraqis have sure lost quite a lot of aircraft during the long Iraq-Iran
> war, with quite a few MiG-21/23/25, Mirage F1, Su-22 and other assorted
> types being credited to the Tomcats by both sides. It has been often relayed
> as a fact that, during the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqis were very unwilling to
> go anywhere near the USN F-14s and their tell-tale AWG-9 signature, while
> not being so shy towards the Eagles. Reports have come out - both recent and
> old - of Iraqi pilots saying that the F-14s were the Iranian aircraft they
> most feared...
>
> So what do you think? Are the politicos (in and out of uniform) giving the
> Buffalo the thumbs down for reasons other than performance? Is the F-14 a
> more successful fighter than we have been lead to believe? Or not?
>
> _____________
> José Herculano

I've yet to ever hear anybody diss the F-14 based on its performance.
Instead, much of what I've heard comes down to the supposed advantage
of CVW's based on SH given (again supposed) advantages in maintenance.
Instead of pilots, we'll need to hear from plane captains on that
score. I've yet to hear this discussed, but it may also have
something to do with the more complicated state of our ROE which
obviates the need for or precludes the resort to missile shots from as
far away as those of the Phoenix.

In article >,
(Elmshoot) wrote:

> > It seems there is credible evidence for around 130 air-to-air F-14
> > kills, with some 40 of those been AIM-54 kills. Actual recorded
> > claims are higher than that, but let's stay cautious.
>
> I would not even buy 1/3 that total! I don't think the Iraquies had
> that many planes to shoot down.

As of the Iran-Iraq war, 1980-88, the Iraqis certainly did have enough for
that. They had 100+ fighters and fighter-bombers left flyable at the start
of the 1991 War, which they sent over to Iran "to keep safe for them".
This hadn't been pre-arranged, or anything sensible like that. The
Iranians said "Oh, thanks" and kept them, giggling like anything.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

I don't know if this is part of your question (it seems to be), but I've
asked about the accuracy of Tom's book[s] about Iranian F-4s and F-14s
without getting too much of a straight answer. Heck, not so much as a
"wink/nod" to confirm it when talking to Phantom/Tomcat aircrew (current and
former). I'd love to know how accurate it is, and while Tom certainly seems
credible enough, it'd be nice to get confirmation from another insider
source. Certainly, if his claims are true, it'd be hard to see how Tomcat
crews could resist bragging about those kills (especially compared to the
Eagles ~100 kills). That would also suggest that Iran has a cadre of very
skilled and/or experienced pilots in their AF, which would make any action
against Iran very interesting to say the least! But that's drifting a
little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
more from those in the know. Cheers,

Tony

> little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
> more from those in the know. Cheers,

That's the whole idea ;-)
_____________
José Herculano

On 24 Oct 2004 14:33:05 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

> Tamas-<< Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
> trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
> place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
> retiring all Tomcats. >><BR><BR>
>
> It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14
> squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.

It's pretty much bulletproof, too, being overbuilt and armored. Wing
sweep problems are really rare. The folks at Pax tested the one wing
stuck aft flyability and landability (I don't remember whether they
tested trappability, though), I think as the result of that actually
happening once. That was fairly recently, like in the last decade, so
it's probably related to system wear.

> It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available
> technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics, ****poor
> engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30).

What really did it in was LRUs, Line-Replaceable Units. These greatly
reduce the amount of plane-side maintenance by moving it to depots.
Instead of repairing or replacing components, the entire defective
unit is pulled out and a new working unit is plugged in. This is
quick and easy.

The LRUs were the result of the military emphasizing ease of
maintenance. With LRUs they increased up time, reduced maintenance
time, and reduced crew size.

We saw a huge improvement in all three at Dryden when we switched from
F-104s to F-18s. The USN saw something similar going from A-7s to
F/A-18s, according to a couple of captains I talked to back in 1990.

> BUT it had nothing to do with it being a varible geometry A/C...

Exactly.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2004 14:33:05 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:
>> It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with
>> available technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube
>> type avionics, ****poor engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30).
>
> What really did it in was LRUs, Line-Replaceable Units. These greatly
> reduce the amount of plane-side maintenance by moving it to depots.
> Instead of repairing or replacing components, the entire defective
> unit is pulled out and a new working unit is plugged in. This is
> quick and easy.
>
> The LRUs were the result of the military emphasizing ease of
> maintenance. With LRUs they increased up time, reduced maintenance
> time, and reduced crew size.
>
> We saw a huge improvement in all three at Dryden when we switched from
> F-104s to F-18s. The USN saw something similar going from A-7s to
> F/A-18s, according to a couple of captains I talked to back in 1990.

Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat
availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early
1990s like the Super Hornet. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base
structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and
inlet redesign was desirable.)

I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH
(bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the
electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing
new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and
maintenance costs.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On 11/2/04 6:49 PM, in article
, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

> Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat
> availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early
> 1990s like the Super Hornet. (Actually, unlike the Hornet, the base
> structural design could probably have been retained, even if a wing and
> inlet redesign was desirable.)
>
> I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than the SH
> (bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that switching the
> electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight controls, and installing
> new-technology engines would have done wonders for servicability rates and
> maintenance costs.

Tom,

The Super Hornet issn't as much of a ground-up redesign as it is an
improvement on the old model. It's amazing how similar the two jets are.

From a maintenance standpoint the Tomcat would have to make some MAJOR
changes to keep up with the Hornet WRT MMH/FH. e.g. Engine changes... it's
WAY easier to do on a Hornet because it was DESIGNED to be easier. That'd
be tough to design in on a Tomcat.

--Woody

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> On 11/2/04 6:49 PM, in article
> , "Thomas Schoene"
> > wrote:
>
>> Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat
>> availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in
>> the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. (Actually, unlike the
>> Hornet, the base structural design could probably have been
>> retained, even if a wing and inlet redesign was desirable.)
>>
>> I'm sure it would still have been more maintenance-intensive than
>> the SH (bigger engines, second seat, etc.). But it seems to me that
>> switching the electronics over to LRUs, going to modern flight
>> controls, and installing new-technology engines would have done
>> wonders for servicability rates and maintenance costs.
>
> Tom,
>
> The Super Hornet issn't as much of a ground-up redesign as it is an
> improvement on the old model. It's amazing how similar the two jets
> are.

Electronics wise, I know this is the case. Airframe-wise, it's bigger in
all dimensions and signiicantly reshaped; there can't be that much parts
commonality. I know all the skin panels are different, thanks to RCS issues,
and the fuselage structure has to be different, since the engines are
larger. Does it have *any* common non-electronic parts aft of the cockpit
(aside from perhaps the hook and various ejector racks and dispensers)?

>
> From a maintenance standpoint the Tomcat would have to make some MAJOR
> changes to keep up with the Hornet WRT MMH/FH. e.g. Engine
> changes... it's WAY easier to do on a Hornet because it was DESIGNED
> to be easier. That'd be tough to design in on a Tomcat.

Well sure. I'm just wondering how much better than the original Tomcat you
could get. I'm betting there was lots of room for improvement.

For example, what makes the Hornet's engine changes easier? I vaguely
recall that the Hornet's engine comes out through the bottom of the
aircraft, while the Tomcat's has to come out the back. I can see the clear
space advantage of being able to do the work in the plane's shadow on the
hangar deck, but I have to wonder if the Tomcat could be made to do the same
thing.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in
link.net:

<snippage>

> For example, what makes the Hornet's engine changes easier? I
> vaguely recall that the Hornet's engine comes out through the bottom
> of the aircraft, while the Tomcat's has to come out the back. I can
> see the clear space advantage of being able to do the work in the
> plane's shadow on the hangar deck, but I have to wonder if the Tomcat
> could be made to do the same thing.

There are two factors involved in the difference in engine changes. The
first is the amount of support equipment involved - less for the F-18.
The second is the amount of airframe disassembly involved - again less
for the F-18.

On 11/2/04 8:49 PM, in article
. net, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

> Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> The Super Hornet issn't as much of a ground-up redesign as it is an
>> improvement on the old model. It's amazing how similar the two jets
>> are.
>
> Electronics wise, I know this is the case. Airframe-wise, it's bigger in
> all dimensions and signiicantly reshaped; there can't be that much parts
> commonality. I know all the skin panels are different, thanks to RCS issues,
> and the fuselage structure has to be different, since the engines are
> larger. Does it have *any* common non-electronic parts aft of the cockpit
> (aside from perhaps the hook and various ejector racks and dispensers)?

The shape of the airframe is different, but my understanding is that the
design features that make the aircraft maintainable remain--with some
additional improvements.

I can't tell you what does remain the same though. I've ridden in the E/F,
but never actually spent a lot of time "under the hood."

>>
>> From a maintenance standpoint the Tomcat would have to make some MAJOR
>> changes to keep up with the Hornet WRT MMH/FH. e.g. Engine
>> changes... it's WAY easier to do on a Hornet because it was DESIGNED
>> to be easier. That'd be tough to design in on a Tomcat.
>
> Well sure. I'm just wondering how much better than the original Tomcat you
> could get. I'm betting there was lots of room for improvement.

I get your point.

> For example, what makes the Hornet's engine changes easier? I vaguely
> recall that the Hornet's engine comes out through the bottom of the
> aircraft, while the Tomcat's has to come out the back. I can see the clear
> space advantage of being able to do the work in the plane's shadow on the
> hangar deck, but I have to wonder if the Tomcat could be made to do the same
> thing.

I'm out on a limb a bit here because I'm NOT a maintainer and never have
been. What makes the engine change easier on the Hornet is the ability to
disconnect the motor and all of its accessories very easily--like the AMAD.
The drive (generator, fuel pump, hyd pump) is very easily and simultaneously
disconnected. There are only three bolts that hold each engine in the bay
in the Hornet and very few linkages. After that, it's simply a matter of
lowering the transporter. Once the process gets going (i.e. jet in hangar,
mechs and tools in position), I think I've seen a motor come out in about an
hour.

The jet was intelligently designed. The diagnostic MSP codes it pumps out
(while not 100% accurate) significantly reduce trouble shooting--for
instance leading AT's to the correct LRU the first time--as opposed to the
(admittedly more "romantic") troubleshooting techniques on older Grumman
jets. This is the result of a systems engineering approach to maintenance.
(F-35 is even better OBTW.) A ground-up redesign on the Tomcat might be
able to incorporate some of these features, but you're still saddled with
the constraints of the basic airframe.

--Woody

Thomas-<< Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat
availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early
1990s like the Super Hornet. >><BR><BR>

To late. If it was going to become the 'Super Tomcat or Tomcat 21, it needed to
happen in the 80s, when $ was everywhere.

The F-14A languished, no new models came out in spite of plans to have a
re-engined F-14B after just a few F-14As.

It could have been a contender but as soon as the $ went to the F-18, the
F-14"E", ala the Strike Eagle, was doomed.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 11/3/04 8:11 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Thomas-<< Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened to Tomcat
> availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the ground up in the early
> 1990s like the Super Hornet. >><BR><BR>
>
> To late. If it was going to become the 'Super Tomcat or Tomcat 21, it needed
> to
> happen in the 80s, when $ was everywhere.
>
> The F-14A languished, no new models came out in spite of plans to have a
> re-engined F-14B after just a few F-14As.
>
> It could have been a contender but as soon as the $ went to the F-18, the
> F-14"E", ala the Strike Eagle, was doomed.

You know, Pechs, you bring out an interesting point. I'm SHOCKED at how
long it has taken to de-couple the cockpits for the Super Hornet--something
that has existed in the Mud Hen for ages (i.e. ever since I was an Intruder
guy).

Same company. Same mission. Technology that has been around for more than
12 or so years. Why wasn't it instantaneously part of the Super Hornet's
(or D-model's for that matter) bag o tricks?

Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.

--Woody

With this thread still active, I thought I'd take another crack at expousing
Jose's original query to those in the know about the accuracy of Tom's books
on the performance of the F-4 and -14 in Iranian air combat. The stuff on
the Tomcat could surely have a lot to say about the current picture of a-a
combat. Some of you guys must have an inkling about whether or not there
really was a lot of a-a combat as Tom suggests, or whether the "popular"
account of there being very little a-a action (and airworthy 'Cats!) is more
likely to be true. Thanks,

Tony

Pechs1 wrote:
> Thomas-<< Which does raise the question ogf what might have happened
> to Tomcat availability, etc, if it had been redeisgned from the
> ground up in the early 1990s like the Super Hornet. >><BR><BR>
>
> To late. If it was going to become the 'Super Tomcat or Tomcat 21, it
> needed to happen in the 80s, when $ was everywhere.

I would say that the detailed Super Tomcat work would have been done in
about the same period as the F/A-18E/F, but you're quite right to point out
that the groundwork needed to be laid earlier. If in the early 1980s, they
had comitted to making the whole force into F-14Ds or equivalent, there
would have been a lot more reason to push a next generation version in place
of the Super Bug.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Tom->I would say that the detailed Super Tomcat work would have been done in
>
>about the same period as the F/A-18E/F,

It was, I saw briefs on the Tomcat 21 when I was in VX-4...late 80s but the USN
didn't buy it.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

In article >, wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2004 14:33:05 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:
>
> > Tamas-<< Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
> > trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
> > place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN is
> > retiring all Tomcats. >><BR><BR>
> >
> > It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2 F-14
> > squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.
>
> It's pretty much bulletproof, too, being overbuilt and armored. Wing
> sweep problems are really rare. The folks at Pax tested the one wing
> stuck aft flyability and landability (I don't remember whether they
> tested trappability, though), I think as the result of that actually
> happening once. That was fairly recently, like in the last decade, so
> it's probably related to system wear.
>
> > It is an old design, never modified to it's full capabilities with available
> > technology. Analog, push rod type flight controls, tube type avionics,
****poor
> > engines in the majority of the A/C(TF-30).
>
> What really did it in was LRUs, Line-Replaceable Units. These greatly
> reduce the amount of plane-side maintenance by moving it to depots.
> Instead of repairing or replacing components, the entire defective
> unit is pulled out and a new working unit is plugged in. This is
> quick and easy.
>
> The LRUs were the result of the military emphasizing ease of
> maintenance. With LRUs they increased up time, reduced maintenance
> time, and reduced crew size.
>
> We saw a huge improvement in all three at Dryden when we switched from
> F-104s to F-18s. The USN saw something similar going from A-7s to
> F/A-18s, according to a couple of captains I talked to back in 1990.

I started with Hughes in '78 and LRUs were the design standard then.
Can't speak for the rest of the electronics on the a/c, but the radar & EW
systems were designed as LRUs.

Here's the real difference today:
Prior to the mid-90's all maintenance was 3 levels; flightline, shop level
(local, on-base), and depot. The flightline maintenance comsists of
replacing the black box at the airplane.

The shop level tried to diagnose the problem with the black box, open
it up and replace the faulty assembly inside. This required a LOT of test
and evaluation equipment and highly trained electronics techs.
Sometimes even card repairs were done in the shop.

Anything that could not be diagnosed and fixed in the shop was sent to
the depot for repair.

This 3 level maintenance was the same for both USAF and USN.

Lately, since the mid-90's, contracts have gone to 2 level maintenance.
Getting rid of the intermediate shop has eased a lot of problems;
No expensive test equipment, reduced need for trained techs, less
hardware in the pipeline, less facilities required, etc.
Now, the LRUs are pulled at the flightline and sent directly to the depot
with no attempt to repair at the base.

What allows this to be economical are three things, heavy emphasis
on reliability engineering, improved capability of embedded self-test,
and the FEDEX model of moving hardware fast overnight.

There were LRUs well before the F/A-18, but Mary is right in that the
emphasis on ease of maintenance and reliability paid real
dividends in system availability and uptime, and reduced cost.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

>> > Tamas-<< Otherwise all variable wing planes suck a great deal: heavy,
>> > trouble-prone, cost a lot to maintain, wings mecha takes up precious
>> > place in the fuselage, won't survive battle damage. No wonder the USN
>> > is
>> > retiring all Tomcats. >><BR><BR>
>> >
>> > It wasn't the swept wing that doomed the F-14. In my experience in 2
>> > F-14
>> > squadrons, the wing sweep mechanism was never a maintenance issue.
>>
>> It's pretty much bulletproof, too, being overbuilt and armored. Wing
>> sweep problems are really rare. The folks at Pax tested the one wing
>> stuck aft flyability and landability (I don't remember whether they
>> tested trappability, though), I think as the result of that actually
>> happening once. That was fairly recently, like in the last decade, so
>> it's probably related to system wear.

The wing sweep actuators ran on separate hyd systems but were interconnected
via a torque tube so that loss of one PC would not inhibit wing operation.
Problem was the torque tube was designed for emergency use, not every day.
Standard maint procedures would use only one hyd to power the system and
sweep the wings with the tube. Eventually one failed in flight and the
aircraft trapped aboard America in the IO with one at 20 degrees one at 35
(mid 80's, the cruise after I left VF-102). It was relatively easy to
control and except for higher approach speed (maneuvering flaps/slats only)
not that big a deal.

R / John

Delighted to hear your experience again, Mary! You really have a unique
point of view.
(although I still smart a little when my first post attempt on this group
was rejected years ago, when you said it was "almost good enough")
Were you the last moderator on this group?
Old Chief Lynn

Harry Andreas wrote:
> This 3 level maintenance was the same for both USAF and USN.
>
> Lately, since the mid-90's, contracts have gone to 2 level maintenance.
> Getting rid of the intermediate shop has eased a lot of problems;

Harry, there is still 3 level maintenance. In the USN, what you
refer to as flightline is usually called "O level" as in organization
(squadron). "I level" for intermediate, may be as close as across
the street on base, but it is a separate entity from the squadron.
(It is also usually a "good deal" for the maintenance folks for a
shore tour after their time in the squadron, especially if the guys
with families, because they don't have to move.) Depot level is
usually not on the same base, as one depot serves a geographical
reqion of several hundred miles radius or more.

From what I've seen so far, I agree with how you describe the
direction of the work on the flightline. Fault codes,
troubleshooting flowcharts, and replacing black boxes. The avionics
guys still know how to detail work like repair individual pins in
connectors, check for continuity, but I've seen major components like
an entire FLIR turret get shipped to swap out with a bad one on a
deployed aircraft.

By the way I'm a helicopter guy, not fast mover, but maintenance is a
pretty similar business through all of naval aviation.

Jim Carriere > wrote in message >...
> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > This 3 level maintenance was the same for both USAF and USN.
> >
> > Lately, since the mid-90's, contracts have gone to 2 level maintenance.
> > Getting rid of the intermediate shop has eased a lot of problems;
>
> Harry, there is still 3 level maintenance. In the USN, what you
> refer to as flightline is usually called "O level" as in organization
> (squadron). "I level" for intermediate, may be as close as across
> the street on base, but it is a separate entity from the squadron.
> (It is also usually a "good deal" for the maintenance folks for a
> shore tour after their time in the squadron, especially if the guys
> with families, because they don't have to move.) Depot level is
> usually not on the same base, as one depot serves a geographical
> reqion of several hundred miles radius or more.
>
> From what I've seen so far, I agree with how you describe the
> direction of the work on the flightline. Fault codes,
> troubleshooting flowcharts, and replacing black boxes. The avionics
> guys still know how to detail work like repair individual pins in
> connectors, check for continuity, but I've seen major components like
> an entire FLIR turret get shipped to swap out with a bad one on a
> deployed aircraft.
>
> By the way I'm a helicopter guy, not fast mover, but maintenance is a
> pretty similar business through all of naval aviation.

I worked intermediate maintenance (Marine Phantoms, S models) in the
late 80s; we deployed *alot*. In a three-year tour, each squadron had
two WestPacs and two WTIs to Yuma. However, it was always shore-based
deployment (from Kaneohe Bay to Iwakuni, then to Subic or Kadena). I,
being young and newly married, was always sent somewhere every few
months.

When we reported aboard Kaneohe, most of us were assigned to one of
the rotary wing or Phantom squadrons, which meant we deployed; some
were attached to the H&MS 24 squadron, which meant they didn't deploy.
Everyone in IMA worked in the same shop and on whatever gear from
whatever squadron needed work; the only difference was whenever
VMFA-212 was heading out, those Marines attached to 212 left too and
worked out of the local H&MS shop wherever they were deployed to.

At least once, at Subic, the APA test bench for the Phantoms broke,
which IIRC was a downing gripe for Phantoms since a myriad of flight
attitude information was routed through it. A carrier (the Ranger?)
had S-model Phantoms onboard and pulled into Subic for shore leave.
We got permission from the ship to come aboard -- called for a base
taxi, loaded the trunk with broken APA modules, and hauled them to the
ship. We went aboard, promptly broke the Navy's test bench too, and
were politely asked to leave and not come back anymore...

Thanks for the trip down memory lane,
Matt

Some complicating factors that came with the F-14:

1. Congress dictated, and the Navy agreed, that 70% of aircraft failures
would be repairable at the organizational or intermediate level.

2. Congress dictated that Grumman use many small-business minority-setaside
subcontractors. Many of these were frauds from the start; the president of
the company was last seen headed for Brazil with his secretary under one arm
and the entire assets of the company under the other. Once the company was
gone, where do we get the parts? Just get the drawings and find another
bidder, right? Wrong! The drawings were assets in bankruptcy, and
bankruptcy courts do not work for DOD.

3. From day one, the RAG's, fleet squadrons, the production line and the
Iranian buy were in competition for parts. It had been agreed that Iran
would receive a one-year AVCAL (spare parts allowance based on aircraft
quantity and projected flight hours) at the time of delivery of the first
aircraft. Shortly into production, it was decided we could get more oil
money back by providing Iran a two-year AVCAL with the first aircraft.

4. Every Congresscritter had to have an ankle to bite where the F-14 was
concerned. Practically all F-14 communications from the fleet to Washington
were by phone; any telegraphic message mentioning a fault or shortage would
be highlighted in Jack Anderson's newspaper column within hours.

5. Fleet introduction was the classic Chinese fire drill. The first fleet
F-14's that landed on Enterprise couldn't be launched; the nose launch bars
would not fit the ship's fittings. George Skurla, President of Grumman
Aerospace, was personally assigned a helicopter with crew and a machinist
mate with a set of micrometers and flew the parts ashore to a machine shop
in San Diego so they could be machined to fit.

6. By the time VF-124, -1, -2, -14 and -32 were outfitted, there had been
so many configuration changes that the maintainers had to carry a matrix
chart listing Bureau Numbers versus LRU dash numbers. Each LRU version had
a code for each BUNO: 1) Works OK; 2) Works - Degraded Capability, or; 3)
Don't Plug It In - Makes Smoke.

Truly, a flying miracle!

Rick

P.S.: Would one of you REAL old-timers give me the real scoop on the Wing
Flap Glove Vane System?










"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Andreas wrote:
>> This 3 level maintenance was the same for both USAF and USN.
>>
>> Lately, since the mid-90's, contracts have gone to 2 level maintenance.
>> Getting rid of the intermediate shop has eased a lot of problems;
>
> Harry, there is still 3 level maintenance. In the USN, what you refer to
> as flightline is usually called "O level" as in organization (squadron).
> "I level" for intermediate, may be as close as across the street on base,
> but it is a separate entity from the squadron. (It is also usually a "good
> deal" for the maintenance folks for a shore tour after their time in the
> squadron, especially if the guys with families, because they don't have to
> move.) Depot level is usually not on the same base, as one depot serves a
> geographical reqion of several hundred miles radius or more.
>
> From what I've seen so far, I agree with how you describe the direction of
> the work on the flightline. Fault codes, troubleshooting flowcharts, and
> replacing black boxes. The avionics guys still know how to detail work
> like repair individual pins in connectors, check for continuity, but I've
> seen major components like an entire FLIR turret get shipped to swap out
> with a bad one on a deployed aircraft.
>
> By the way I'm a helicopter guy, not fast mover, but maintenance is a
> pretty similar business through all of naval aviation.
>

In article >, Jim Carriere
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > This 3 level maintenance was the same for both USAF and USN.
> >
> > Lately, since the mid-90's, contracts have gone to 2 level maintenance.
> > Getting rid of the intermediate shop has eased a lot of problems;
>
> Harry, there is still 3 level maintenance. In the USN, what you
> refer to as flightline is usually called "O level" as in organization
> (squadron). "I level" for intermediate, may be as close as across
> the street on base, but it is a separate entity from the squadron.
> (It is also usually a "good deal" for the maintenance folks for a
> shore tour after their time in the squadron, especially if the guys
> with families, because they don't have to move.) Depot level is
> usually not on the same base, as one depot serves a geographical
> reqion of several hundred miles radius or more.
>

Yes, I know about O and I level. I try to KISS these subjects because
this newsgroup is read by a lot of people who who don't know.
I should have mentioned that many, many programs/platforms
still use 3 level maintenance; that what I described as 2 level
maintenance is really just now starting to hit the fleet with the
newer systems like the new APG-79 radar in the F/A-18E/F.
I recently worked the GPS receiver for the JSF. F-35 is using
2 level maintenance also.

> From what I've seen so far, I agree with how you describe the
> direction of the work on the flightline. Fault codes,
> troubleshooting flowcharts, and replacing black boxes. The avionics
> guys still know how to detail work like repair individual pins in
> connectors, check for continuity, but I've seen major components like
> an entire FLIR turret get shipped to swap out with a bad one on a
> deployed aircraft.
>
> By the way I'm a helicopter guy, not fast mover, but maintenance is a
> pretty similar business through all of naval aviation.

Agreed. The philosophy of maintenance and testability is the same
regardless of platform.
As the older systems are replaced, 2LM will be increasingly common
and the costs should drop, as long as the PMA funds enough spare
LRUs for the pipeline.

r/

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

José,
I'm glad you found the book interesting.

Nevertheless, I notice some scepticism regarding the "claims" we've
published in it, so let me just add here, that we have very carefully
researched them. In fact, 95% of the claims you can find in the list
on pages 85 thru 88 were cross-examined with what can be found in
different USAF and USN documents, during interviews with Iraqi pilots
and officers. Given some quite useful reactions on that book from Iraq
we're currently getting, I can say that the actual number of confirmed
kills could eventually easily go over 200.

Of course, there is a legitime question of how is one getting a
confirmation for a kill scored over a range of between 70 and 150km.
But, we all should actually know that such kills can be confirmed as
well - especially when one finally establishes good contacts to both
involved sides and gets confirmation even from the opposition. So, for
example, when an Iranian pilot claims he fired two AIM-54s and two
AIM-7s from BV-ranges to engage a group of eight Iraqi fighters and
shot down two, but surviving Iraqi pilots from that formation say
they've seen with their own eyes as three of their pals went down in
flames, and an USAF document confirms this, then I'd say we've been
cautios enough for that case, and do not see a particular reason to
question that statement from the Iranian pilot.

Regarding why was the F-14 always getting tumbs down when it came to
political decisions in the USA: well, that remains unclear to anybody
Farzad and me were able to ask. It was certainly not the performance
of the aircraft - neither that in the USA nor combat performance in
Iran, then especially the later was actually well-known to relevant
circles in Pentagon.

Certain is that if Iran remained a US ally through the 1980s they
would re-engine and futher upgrade their whole fleet (which by 1985
would consist of some 150 Tomcats), and this process would very likely
cause the USN to do something similar as well. After all, it was Iran
who saved the whole project already in 1974....


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

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

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

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

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

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

On 11/6/04 12:52 AM, in article
, "Tom" > wrote:

> José,
> I'm glad you found the book interesting.
>
> Nevertheless, I notice some scepticism regarding the "claims" we've
> published in it, so let me just add here, that we have very carefully
> researched them. In fact, 95% of the claims you can find in the list
> on pages 85 thru 88 were cross-examined with what can be found in
> different USAF and USN documents, during interviews with Iraqi pilots
> and officers. Given some quite useful reactions on that book from Iraq
> we're currently getting, I can say that the actual number of confirmed
> kills could eventually easily go over 200.
>
> Of course, there is a legitime question of how is one getting a
> confirmation for a kill scored over a range of between 70 and 150km.
> But, we all should actually know that such kills can be confirmed as
> well - especially when one finally establishes good contacts to both
> involved sides and gets confirmation even from the opposition. So, for
> example, when an Iranian pilot claims he fired two AIM-54s and two
> AIM-7s from BV-ranges to engage a group of eight Iraqi fighters and
> shot down two, but surviving Iraqi pilots from that formation say
> they've seen with their own eyes as three of their pals went down in
> flames, and an USAF document confirms this, then I'd say we've been
> cautios enough for that case, and do not see a particular reason to
> question that statement from the Iranian pilot.
>

What USAF document?

Admittedly, I'm a skeptic when it comes to statements by Iranian and Iraqi
pilots--in fact, from all pilots involved in combat because most tend to
"stretch the truth" a bit.

Unless these guys were actually cleaning up the merges and seeing smoke
trails and also brining tapes back to be verified by an impartial USAF intel
officer on the ground reviewed them as source material to write the
document, I'd still doubt their veracity.

For example, I read one interview from an Iraqi pilot (fairly senior too
IIRC) in some UNCLAS Israeli article who was certain that the Apex was an
active missile. When stooging down range towards each other in the heat of
battle, these guys are sure to get their facts mixed up--on both sides.

> Regarding why was the F-14 always getting tumbs down when it came to
> political decisions in the USA: well, that remains unclear to anybody
> Farzad and me were able to ask. It was certainly not the performance
> of the aircraft - neither that in the USA nor combat performance in
> Iran, then especially the later was actually well-known to relevant
> circles in Pentagon.
>

USAF mafia always throws the Eagles to the front of the line. They can be
very good though--and have very many systems upgrades that the Tomcat never
got.

> Certain is that if Iran remained a US ally through the 1980s they
> would re-engine and futher upgrade their whole fleet (which by 1985
> would consist of some 150 Tomcats), and this process would very likely
> cause the USN to do something similar as well. After all, it was Iran
> who saved the whole project already in 1974....
>

Certain? No. Likely? Perhaps.

--Woody

Doug-<< Admittedly, I'm a skeptic when it comes to statements by Iranian and
Iraqi
pilots--in fact, from all pilots involved in combat because most tend to
"stretch the truth" a bit. >><BR><BR>

No kiddin. I went to an ROE brief in Alexandria Egypt, and we(2 O-4s) came into
an auditorium filled with just about every Egyptian pilot they had. MANY
General officers and many veterans of the '73 war with Israel. If you added up
all their 'kills' tho, it would have been 3-4 times as many A/C that Israel has
ever had...

The F-14 languished and was never the A-A platform needed after the USSR was
seen to be not a threat to the CVBG. Another attempt to make it something it
wasn't, like making a really good bomber out of the F-4, when the A-7 was
technically lightyears ahead.

The F-15/6 was a better design from the ground up and was modified/improved
constantly.

I was in Oceana when the first F-14s were on the ramp(VF-32/14, 1977 or so)...a
decade later I flew the same A/C that had not been modified at all(VF-31).
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...

> The jet was intelligently designed. The diagnostic MSP codes it pumps out
> (while not 100% accurate) significantly reduce trouble shooting--for
> instance leading AT's to the correct LRU the first time--as opposed to the
> (admittedly more "romantic") troubleshooting techniques on older Grumman
> jets. This is the result of a systems engineering approach to
> maintenance.
> (F-35 is even better OBTW.) A ground-up redesign on the Tomcat might be
> able to incorporate some of these features, but you're still saddled with
> the constraints of the basic airframe.

You hit the nail right on the head. As a former Tomcat avionics tech, I will
admit the F-14 challenged me to be a better tech - however the learning
curve was very steep. When I transferred to Pax in the late 80's I was
shocked to learn how easy the Hornets were to work on (all us avionics types
worked out of the same workcenter at the late great SATD). The lessons
learned then serve me well now as an R&M engineering tech.

One minor nit - "LRU" is usually a USAF term. We tend to call boxes WRA's in
the Navy. (Weapons Replaceable Assembly).

-CJ

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...


>> Of course, there is a legitime question of how is one getting a
>> confirmation for a kill scored over a range of between 70 and 150km.
>> But, we all should actually know that such kills can be confirmed as
>> well - especially when one finally establishes good contacts to both
>> involved sides and gets confirmation even from the opposition. So, for
>> example, when an Iranian pilot claims he fired two AIM-54s and two
>> AIM-7s from BV-ranges to engage a group of eight Iraqi fighters and
>> shot down two, but surviving Iraqi pilots from that formation say
>> they've seen with their own eyes as three of their pals went down in
>> flames, and an USAF document confirms this, then I'd say we've been
>> cautios enough for that case, and do not see a particular reason to
>> question that statement from the Iranian pilot.
>>
>
> What USAF document?

Woody, I have a case with over 6.000 pages of relevant USAF, USN, US Army
and State Department documents (approx two times the size of Red Baron II
and III - if you've ever seen these). I haven't found time yet to sort them
out by any system, just put them there as they arrived after being released
according to FOIA procedures. If you're seriously interested I'll find the
specific one. That's no problem.

In the example I mentioned above the story went like this:

- In one of the NGs that is now operated by Google, years ago, somebody
mentioned a case where a single IRIAF F-14 fired six AIM-54s to shot down
something like six Iraqis; this caught our attention so we started
researching

- During our research we've found several Iranian F-14-pilots that scored
three or four kills during a single engagement. Three of these have scored
multiple kills with a single Phoenix (usually against IrAF MiG-23s flying in
very tight formatzions) so they were out of question for this example. Then
we found several who used between two and four AIM-54s to score between two
and four kills during a single engagement. Comparing the story we've found
on that NG, we concluded that the one we were searching for was Capt.
Mustafa Khosrodad, who engaged eight IrAF fighters in November 1982 and
claimed two of them as shot down after firing two AIM-54s, followed by two
AIM-7s during a single engagement. Maj. Khosrodad supplied his full
narrative about this engagement, with all the relevant informations he was
able to recall - but without the date, then he couldn't recall exactly.

- Then we started asking our Iraqi contacts if they could recall any such
engagement that occurred in November 1982, and found a Mi-8-pilot, Capt.
Samir Mousa. He recalled a VIP-transport mission from November 1982, when a
formation of eight IrAF fighters was suddenly hit by "something" and three
fighters got shot down.

- Then we started a FOIA inquiry, asking USAF specifically for a document
mentioning a multiple-AIM-54-engagement for a specific part of November
1982, in which IRIAF F-14s shot down "several" IrAF MiGs. I recall we've got
an answer within less than two months, including a confirmation that there
was such an engagement on November 21st, 1982, and that three IrAF fighters
were shot down. As said, if you're really interested, I'll find you that
document, that's not so much of a problem.

Eventually, when we put all the three things together (plus a narrative from
an IRIAF Boeing 707-tanker crew that was there as well), we were able to
reconstruct the whole story. You can read this in the volume 104 of AIR
Enthusiast magazine (article "Fire in the Hills"), together with our
findings on the topic of that well-known claim for Mi-24 downing an IRIAF
F-4, in October 1982.

Concluding that we're likely to be confronted with massive scepticism
regarding the results of our work - after all we all know what was
previously published about this air war by all the "authoritative" sources
so far - we subsequently did exactly the same for something like 150 other
claims from IRIAF F-14-pilots, and at least some 90 other Iranian and Iraqi
claims too. This took something like five years to do (and quite an amount
of bucks). But, eventually, I can ascertain that we've checked our stuff as
tightly as possible and are sure about things we're talking about.

For comparission, I'm sure that no author who ever published about the
Israelis did anything similar (a comprehensive cross-examination of Israeli
and Arab claims, and available US documents). Yet, would anybody here put
their publications in doubt?

> Admittedly, I'm a skeptic when it comes to statements by Iranian and Iraqi
> pilots--in fact, from all pilots involved in combat because most tend to
> "stretch the truth" a bit.
>
> Unless these guys were actually cleaning up the merges and seeing smoke
> trails and also brining tapes back to be verified by an impartial USAF
> intel
> officer on the ground reviewed them as source material to write the
> document, I'd still doubt their veracity.

Clearly, neither the Iraqis nor Iranians were bringing tapes to anybody for
"impartial" analysis. But, all possible US intel agencies - and especially
the USAFIA - were tracking this war as closely as possible. ONI's SPEARTIPs
documents for 1980s and early 1990s are particularly full of reports about
air-to-air battles between Iranian and Iraqi fighters fought over the
Persian Gulf, just for example. Plus, the CIA, USAFIA, ONI etc. also
debriefed well over 100 ex-Iranian pilots who emigrated into the USA in the
early 1990s.

I don't know - and do not care - why nobody else requested the release of
these documents so far. Perhaps nobody came to the idea - or knew enough to
ask for them - that they exist. But the documents are available. Of course,
not all; and, of course, many have large sections blotted out. But, what is
left is still sufficient to confirm - or deny - what one gets to hear from
involved pilots (clearly - and I'd like to stress this - we've had also a
number of claims that were never confirmed).

> For example, I read one interview from an Iraqi pilot (fairly senior too
> IIRC) in some UNCLAS Israeli article who was certain that the Apex was an
> active missile. When stooging down range towards each other in the heat
> of
> battle, these guys are sure to get their facts mixed up--on both sides.

Indeed, we were confronted with such cases as well. For example, there is a
former IrAF Brig.Gen., who fought the whole war with Iran and even
interrogated a number of captured IRIAF pilots. Until today he refuses to
believe that IRIAF F-14s were capable of using AIM-7s in combat. He would
not deny the use of AIM-54s: he knows these are used and is also ready to
confirm the cases where IrAF fighters were shot down by Phoenix. But, he
would not accept that Iranian Tomcats could use AIM-7E-4s. No way - and this
even after I've shown him photos clearly showing IRIAF F-14s carrying
Sparrows in flight, or explained him technical details about the AWG-9.

The reason? Well, he said he's got F-14 flying manual from USA in the late
1980s, where it was stated that Iranian F-14s were downgraded so they
couldn't use AIM-7s at all. So, although the Brig.Gen. in question is
otherwise having excellent infos and plenty of IrAF documents about dozens
of air battles from that war, whenever we mention IRIAF F-14s using AIM-7s
against his former colleagues, we can only expect to cause another fierce
reaction from him.

>> Certain is that if Iran remained a US ally through the 1980s they
>> would re-engine and futher upgrade their whole fleet (which by 1985
>> would consist of some 150 Tomcats), and this process would very likely
>> cause the USN to do something similar as well. After all, it was Iran
>> who saved the whole project already in 1974....
>>
>
> Certain? No. Likely? Perhaps.

Surely it would. Already in 1978 Iran issued a "Letter of Intent" for order
of 75 additional F-14As. The order for AIM-54s was increased from 424 to
over 700. You don't need to trust me: go and ask State Dept. for related
documents. Negotiations about deliveries were going on when the Shah left
the country. Equally, already since 1977 there were "private" negotiations
between P&W and IIAF for re-engining Iranian F-14-fleet by 1982. The
Iranians knew very well about the basic weakness of the TF-30. They have
also lost two F-14s during training missions in the 1970s - both in
engine-related accidents. So they were interested in improving the
situation; they have had the means, and their intentions were clear. There
is no uncertainity about this.

I could now add stuff about Iranian intentions to equipp their F-14s with
stand-off PGMs too, but that would make little sence given your -
understandable - scepticism. Yet, the point is this: from today's standpoint
the relations between the USA and Iran at the time are almost unimaginable.
So, it's extremely problematic to understand specific relations and
connections. But, bear in mind: after the Vietnam War the US aerospace
industry was in deep troubles, as domestic orders were massively cut. Now,
remember what was "Nixon Doctrine" standing for, and then recall that
contrary to Israelis and the South Vietnamese the Iranians have had money to
buy the stuff they needed. So, even if there was quite some resistance -
especially in the US Congress - they were getting stuff they were
requesting. In "worst" cases, i.e. those where even the Shah's influence and
charme couldn't help, the US military would deliver stuff from own stocks
instead (as done with USAF RF-4Cs, for example).

Now, ask yourself the following: the USN wasn't standing by and looking when
Iranians saved the F-14-project in 1974 in order to get their 80 Tomcats.
What would the USN do if Iran would've then re-engined its 150 F-14s and
then also upgrade them for air-to-ground tasks?

Stand beside and watch, without doing anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woody wrote:

> Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "coupled cockpits"?

Scott Seders

>> Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "coupled cockpits"?

The back station is about the same as the front station. IIRC, VFA-103 is
going to be the first fleet squadron with decoupled cockpits, that is the
WSO station has a lot of stuff that the pilot's doesn't have, and
vice-versa.
_____________
José Herculano

On 11/6/04 9:10, in article , "CJ "Smut"
Martin" > wrote:
>
> You hit the nail right on the head. As a former Tomcat avionics tech, I will
> admit the F-14 challenged me to be a better tech - however the learning
> curve was very steep. When I transferred to Pax in the late 80's I was
> shocked to learn how easy the Hornets were to work on (all us avionics types
> worked out of the same workcenter at the late great SATD). The lessons
> learned then serve me well now as an R&M engineering tech.
>
> One minor nit - "LRU" is usually a USAF term. We tend to call boxes WRA's in
> the Navy. (Weapons Replaceable Assembly).
>
> -CJ

Good call. I'm surprisingly bi-lingual though... LRU/WRA... Step/walk...
2-ship/section...

But I'll take it on board.

--Woody

On 11/6/04 10:41, in article , "Scott
Seders" > wrote:

> Woody wrote:
>
>> Most of the 2-seaters in existence now are still coupled cockpits.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by "coupled cockpits"?
>
> Scott Seders
>
>

Scott,

The current F/A-18B/D/F have "coupled" cockpits which means that even though
the pilot and WSO can independently select displays for their respective
Digital Display Indicators (DDI's), whatever the WSO does to his radar
attack display (for example) will also happen to the pilot's radar attack
display in the front. They are "coupled" from front to back cockpit.

Decoupled means that the pilot could be working an air-to-air problem with
the radar while the WSO works an air-to-ground targeting problem.

--Woody

Tom,

My opinions against your research, of course.

I am mildly interested, but frankly, I don't have the time in my life to
read that much documentation. The SPEAR stuff sounds interesting though...
Do you have SPEAR documents?

--Woody

On 11/6/04 10:04, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>> Of course, there is a legitime question of how is one getting a
>>> confirmation for a kill scored over a range of between 70 and 150km.
>>> But, we all should actually know that such kills can be confirmed as
>>> well - especially when one finally establishes good contacts to both
>>> involved sides and gets confirmation even from the opposition. So, for
>>> example, when an Iranian pilot claims he fired two AIM-54s and two
>>> AIM-7s from BV-ranges to engage a group of eight Iraqi fighters and
>>> shot down two, but surviving Iraqi pilots from that formation say
>>> they've seen with their own eyes as three of their pals went down in
>>> flames, and an USAF document confirms this, then I'd say we've been
>>> cautios enough for that case, and do not see a particular reason to
>>> question that statement from the Iranian pilot.
>>>
>>
>> What USAF document?
>
> Woody, I have a case with over 6.000 pages of relevant USAF, USN, US Army
> and State Department documents (approx two times the size of Red Baron II
> and III - if you've ever seen these). I haven't found time yet to sort them
> out by any system, just put them there as they arrived after being released
> according to FOIA procedures. If you're seriously interested I'll find the
> specific one. That's no problem.
>
> In the example I mentioned above the story went like this:
>
> - In one of the NGs that is now operated by Google, years ago, somebody
> mentioned a case where a single IRIAF F-14 fired six AIM-54s to shot down
> something like six Iraqis; this caught our attention so we started
> researching
>
> - During our research we've found several Iranian F-14-pilots that scored
> three or four kills during a single engagement. Three of these have scored
> multiple kills with a single Phoenix (usually against IrAF MiG-23s flying in
> very tight formatzions) so they were out of question for this example. Then
> we found several who used between two and four AIM-54s to score between two
> and four kills during a single engagement. Comparing the story we've found
> on that NG, we concluded that the one we were searching for was Capt.
> Mustafa Khosrodad, who engaged eight IrAF fighters in November 1982 and
> claimed two of them as shot down after firing two AIM-54s, followed by two
> AIM-7s during a single engagement. Maj. Khosrodad supplied his full
> narrative about this engagement, with all the relevant informations he was
> able to recall - but without the date, then he couldn't recall exactly.
>
> - Then we started asking our Iraqi contacts if they could recall any such
> engagement that occurred in November 1982, and found a Mi-8-pilot, Capt.
> Samir Mousa. He recalled a VIP-transport mission from November 1982, when a
> formation of eight IrAF fighters was suddenly hit by "something" and three
> fighters got shot down.
>
> - Then we started a FOIA inquiry, asking USAF specifically for a document
> mentioning a multiple-AIM-54-engagement for a specific part of November
> 1982, in which IRIAF F-14s shot down "several" IrAF MiGs. I recall we've got
> an answer within less than two months, including a confirmation that there
> was such an engagement on November 21st, 1982, and that three IrAF fighters
> were shot down. As said, if you're really interested, I'll find you that
> document, that's not so much of a problem.
>
> Eventually, when we put all the three things together (plus a narrative from
> an IRIAF Boeing 707-tanker crew that was there as well), we were able to
> reconstruct the whole story. You can read this in the volume 104 of AIR
> Enthusiast magazine (article "Fire in the Hills"), together with our
> findings on the topic of that well-known claim for Mi-24 downing an IRIAF
> F-4, in October 1982.
>
> Concluding that we're likely to be confronted with massive scepticism
> regarding the results of our work - after all we all know what was
> previously published about this air war by all the "authoritative" sources
> so far - we subsequently did exactly the same for something like 150 other
> claims from IRIAF F-14-pilots, and at least some 90 other Iranian and Iraqi
> claims too. This took something like five years to do (and quite an amount
> of bucks). But, eventually, I can ascertain that we've checked our stuff as
> tightly as possible and are sure about things we're talking about.
>
> For comparission, I'm sure that no author who ever published about the
> Israelis did anything similar (a comprehensive cross-examination of Israeli
> and Arab claims, and available US documents). Yet, would anybody here put
> their publications in doubt?
>
>> Admittedly, I'm a skeptic when it comes to statements by Iranian and Iraqi
>> pilots--in fact, from all pilots involved in combat because most tend to
>> "stretch the truth" a bit.
>>
>> Unless these guys were actually cleaning up the merges and seeing smoke
>> trails and also brining tapes back to be verified by an impartial USAF
>> intel
>> officer on the ground reviewed them as source material to write the
>> document, I'd still doubt their veracity.
>
> Clearly, neither the Iraqis nor Iranians were bringing tapes to anybody for
> "impartial" analysis. But, all possible US intel agencies - and especially
> the USAFIA - were tracking this war as closely as possible. ONI's SPEARTIPs
> documents for 1980s and early 1990s are particularly full of reports about
> air-to-air battles between Iranian and Iraqi fighters fought over the
> Persian Gulf, just for example. Plus, the CIA, USAFIA, ONI etc. also
> debriefed well over 100 ex-Iranian pilots who emigrated into the USA in the
> early 1990s.
>
> I don't know - and do not care - why nobody else requested the release of
> these documents so far. Perhaps nobody came to the idea - or knew enough to
> ask for them - that they exist. But the documents are available. Of course,
> not all; and, of course, many have large sections blotted out. But, what is
> left is still sufficient to confirm - or deny - what one gets to hear from
> involved pilots (clearly - and I'd like to stress this - we've had also a
> number of claims that were never confirmed).
>
>> For example, I read one interview from an Iraqi pilot (fairly senior too
>> IIRC) in some UNCLAS Israeli article who was certain that the Apex was an
>> active missile. When stooging down range towards each other in the heat
>> of
>> battle, these guys are sure to get their facts mixed up--on both sides.
>
> Indeed, we were confronted with such cases as well. For example, there is a
> former IrAF Brig.Gen., who fought the whole war with Iran and even
> interrogated a number of captured IRIAF pilots. Until today he refuses to
> believe that IRIAF F-14s were capable of using AIM-7s in combat. He would
> not deny the use of AIM-54s: he knows these are used and is also ready to
> confirm the cases where IrAF fighters were shot down by Phoenix. But, he
> would not accept that Iranian Tomcats could use AIM-7E-4s. No way - and this
> even after I've shown him photos clearly showing IRIAF F-14s carrying
> Sparrows in flight, or explained him technical details about the AWG-9.
>
> The reason? Well, he said he's got F-14 flying manual from USA in the late
> 1980s, where it was stated that Iranian F-14s were downgraded so they
> couldn't use AIM-7s at all. So, although the Brig.Gen. in question is
> otherwise having excellent infos and plenty of IrAF documents about dozens
> of air battles from that war, whenever we mention IRIAF F-14s using AIM-7s
> against his former colleagues, we can only expect to cause another fierce
> reaction from him.
>
>>> Certain is that if Iran remained a US ally through the 1980s they
>>> would re-engine and futher upgrade their whole fleet (which by 1985
>>> would consist of some 150 Tomcats), and this process would very likely
>>> cause the USN to do something similar as well. After all, it was Iran
>>> who saved the whole project already in 1974....
>>>
>>
>> Certain? No. Likely? Perhaps.
>
> Surely it would. Already in 1978 Iran issued a "Letter of Intent" for order
> of 75 additional F-14As. The order for AIM-54s was increased from 424 to
> over 700. You don't need to trust me: go and ask State Dept. for related
> documents. Negotiations about deliveries were going on when the Shah left
> the country. Equally, already since 1977 there were "private" negotiations
> between P&W and IIAF for re-engining Iranian F-14-fleet by 1982. The
> Iranians knew very well about the basic weakness of the TF-30. They have
> also lost two F-14s during training missions in the 1970s - both in
> engine-related accidents. So they were interested in improving the
> situation; they have had the means, and their intentions were clear. There
> is no uncertainity about this.
>
> I could now add stuff about Iranian intentions to equipp their F-14s with
> stand-off PGMs too, but that would make little sence given your -
> understandable - scepticism. Yet, the point is this: from today's standpoint
> the relations between the USA and Iran at the time are almost unimaginable.
> So, it's extremely problematic to understand specific relations and
> connections. But, bear in mind: after the Vietnam War the US aerospace
> industry was in deep troubles, as domestic orders were massively cut. Now,
> remember what was "Nixon Doctrine" standing for, and then recall that
> contrary to Israelis and the South Vietnamese the Iranians have had money to
> buy the stuff they needed. So, even if there was quite some resistance -
> especially in the US Congress - they were getting stuff they were
> requesting. In "worst" cases, i.e. those where even the Shah's influence and
> charme couldn't help, the US military would deliver stuff from own stocks
> instead (as done with USAF RF-4Cs, for example).
>
> Now, ask yourself the following: the USN wasn't standing by and looking when
> Iranians saved the F-14-project in 1974 in order to get their 80 Tomcats.
> What would the USN do if Iran would've then re-engined its 150 F-14s and
> then also upgrade them for air-to-ground tasks?
>
> Stand beside and watch, without doing anything?

"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> Tom,
>
> My opinions against your research, of course.
>
> I am mildly interested, but frankly, I don't have the time in my life to
> read that much documentation. The SPEAR stuff sounds interesting
> though...
> Do you have SPEAR documents?

Yes, I do. For example Speartip 014-90 arrived as last, approx a month back
(together with a number of different NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD messages). It's
tittled "Iraq Fighter-Interceptor Capabilities".



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

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

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

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

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

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

"Tony Volk" > wrote in message >...
> I don't know if this is part of your question (it seems to be), but I've
> asked about the accuracy of Tom's book[s] about Iranian F-4s and F-14s
> without getting too much of a straight answer. Heck, not so much as a
> "wink/nod" to confirm it when talking to Phantom/Tomcat aircrew (current and
> former). I'd love to know how accurate it is, and while Tom certainly seems
> credible enough, it'd be nice to get confirmation from another insider
> source. Certainly, if his claims are true, it'd be hard to see how Tomcat
> crews could resist bragging about those kills (especially compared to the
> Eagles ~100 kills). That would also suggest that Iran has a cadre of very
> skilled and/or experienced pilots in their AF, which would make any action
> against Iran very interesting to say the least! But that's drifting a
> little far off topic, so I'll cut it here and reiterate my request to hear
> more from those in the know. Cheers,
>
> Tony

To date "Iran Iraq War in the AirA" (IIWitA) remains the only book of
his that I've read, so I'll answer based on that. The issue of
accuracy in that book (and others if its representative) will continue
to be a problem even if the facts are roughly accurate. This is
because so much of the factual content is uncorroborated. The book is
flush with footnotes, but many of them don't so much as back-up the
facts stated in the main text as simply add to them. Many interesting
nuggets of information lack any footnote at all. This is a problem
because much of the story in history stems from where particular facts
arose and the circumstances under which that occurred. The short
bio-blurb given for Cooper states that he has traveled the world and
cultivated many sources, which suggests that he has spoken with many
direct participants in the conflict. In a book as thick as IIWitA
(and for a war as long as the 80-88 Gulf War), even a small percentage
of apparently uncorroborated info will account for much history.
While it's hardly impossible to accept that Cooper was quite critical
in deciding what would get into the book, little of that translates in
print. There is ofcourse the famous tall-tale of the Hind gunship
that shot a Phantom down with nary more than an anti-tank missile.
Cooper picks apart the story and utterly destroys its credibility.
However, the Phantom story doesn't implicitly buttress the credibility
of the remaining book - only reminds you how a story accepted
uncritically can prove to be incredible under scrutiny. When Cooper
writes about dissected F-14's being analyzed at some secret American
intel briefing, or how Hussein admitted that he was saving Tuwaitha
for Israel, or that there was an Iraqi warplane near the Airbus in the
July '88 incident, you wonder why they don't get as much attention.
(Caveat: Cooper has previously complained about how Schiffer edits
his work, or fails to, and given how I've not read his Osprey books,
it may not be his fault at all).

I know Mr Cooper will blast me for this, but oh well, he has before.

Have any of the aviators that were in the 'fleet'(USN or USAF or even USMC)
during or after the Iran-Irag conflict heard of any of the results that Mr.
Cooper talks about in his book?

I find that even tho I have an SI clearance, and was flying the F-14, even in a
test squadron(VX-4), I never heard of these F-14 results..

Anyone??
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

In fact, Pechs, I'd like to know the answer to this question even more than
you!


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

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

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

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

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

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

Make that three of us! I very much appreciate your detailed explanations of
your data-gathering methods Tom. It must be frustrating to continually
battle skepticism. Any speculation as to why these (clearly significant)
results aren't more widely known or researched?

Tony

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> In fact, Pechs, I'd like to know the answer to this question even more
than
> you!

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> I know Mr Cooper will blast me for this, but oh well, he has before.
>
> Have any of the aviators that were in the 'fleet'(USN or USAF or even USMC)
> during or after the Iran-Irag conflict heard of any of the results that Mr.
> Cooper talks about in his book?
>
> I find that even tho I have an SI clearance, and was flying the F-14, even in a
> test squadron(VX-4), I never heard of these F-14 results..
>
> Anyone??
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs,

Take Mr. Cooper's information with a grain of salt. He's a known
plagerizer, and most of his conclusions are based on conjecture. I've
long ago learned to ignore his bunk.

I've accumulated a 7000 volume aviation library over the years, and
its apparent where Cooper loots his information from...he never uses
citations.
His Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's
"Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism...he absolutely did not
cite Adm. Gillchrist.

The tables on his website contain information purloined from other's
works and there's no citations. He wants people to think he actually
gathered all of that.

He's a joke. A pure amature punting himself about as a legitimate
historian.
Don't believe me? Go pick up Iran-Iraq war 80-88...I have worked with
gifted 4th grade elementary students who would give Tom Cooper a run
for his money, when it comes to writing. He could have solved his
grammatical issues by running the manuscript through a wordcheck. Much
of his stuff is published in UK magazines which are really targeted
for an unsophisticated audience. I have read many of these (did not
buy). You should too, and reach your own conclusions.

My conclusions of his work? Amature, mis-leading, shallow.
Go find yourself a copy any of his work, you will see for yourself.

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/title_detail.php/title=S7875

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

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

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

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

Very nice, sharp one. I've already noticed your attack on amazon.com.

Now that you're here and so willing to "inform" the people about me, I hope you'll be kind to answer me the following questions:

- Would you be so kind to mention all these sources which we plagiarized so much - regardles in which of Farzad's and my publications?

- Which of published sources used for "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" was not mentioned in footnotes?

- Which "massive portions" of "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" were "drawn word by word" from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"?

- Where am I known as a plagiarizer?

- Better yet: "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" was written by two authors. How do you know that it's me who should be a plagiarizer of us two?


- Then, I'd like you to be so kind and explain me the following:

Can you cite the source of such stories like this (excerpt from "Iranian F-4 Phantom Units in Combat"):

'Thanks to 'Combat Tree' and the TISEO, we knew for sure that two Iraqi MiG-23s were ahead of us, so we went after them with our radars off. The flight leader ordered me to keep my eyes open for the MiG-21s that we knew were nearby. As we closed on the two MiG-23s from behind, it appeared they had not seen us, and were focused on something else. The leader had just begun to get a missile tone from his Sidewinder when his WSO (Weapons System Officer) warned him that an F-4E from the other pair had cut in between us and the Iraqi MiGs. As the other Phantom II passed by, I reported ³Close² to my leader to let him know he was covered by me. He responded, ³Stay as close as possible², while trying to turn hard to starboard to stay behind the

MiG-23s.



'As I followed his turn, a single MiG-21 suddenly rolled out 100 metres away from my leader, who had, meanwhile, initiated a left turn, tracking the two MiG-23s ahead of him. With a clear target in front of me, I quickly fired a single Sidewinder. The Iraqi had no time to manoeuvre. The missile hit, and a red and white fireball covered its tail area. The jet crashed nose-down into the ground below. 'The leader then reacquired the MiG-23s with the help of the TISEO, and after some very hard manoeuvring, shot one of the Iraqi jets down using Sidewinders. There were now more MiGs in the area, but we decided to disengage, clearing our 'six' and turning back east. A bombed Iraqi airfield and two MiGs were enough for one day * the war was still far from over...



Can you cite any source where one can read the following (excerpt from "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat"):

By 1300hrs on 24 September 1980, six F-14As of the 81st TFS were armed and ready for take-off at Khatami AB. IRIAF High Command ordered four of these to join a Boeing 707 tanker and patrol over northern Iran, to prevent any IrAF bombers from hitting Mehrabad again. I was to fly one of the remaining two Tomcats, sent to patrol along the border in the south. None of our aircraft were armed with AIM-54s, as we had none ready to load that day, plus - in all honesty - only two or three of available crews were qualified on the system. Only later in the day were two F-14s to fly a mission armed with Phoenix, and they shot down one MiG-21, and then frightened the life out of four Iraqi MiG-23-pilots.

As we took off, there were many "panic-reports" about Iraqi planes crossing into Iran on the radio, but we detected none: only F-5s from TFB.4's 41st, 42nd, and 43rd TFS' and F-4s from 31st, 32nd, and 33rd Squadrons, which were bombing Iraqis with loads of napalm. I ordered radio reports to be ignored as we were burning up to much fuel trying to chase Iraqi "phantoms" down, and from that point on into the mission we would rely only on the information from our AWG-9s. Some 40 minutes after we reached our CAP-station - some 18km west of Vahdati - my wingman called out,

'Multiple bogeys detected! 23km to southeast and closing!' Using our AWG-9s and Combat Tree we determined there were four Su-22s and four MiG-21s - well within our range. We descended down to 20,000ft, closed to 12km and locked-up: each of us fired one AIM-7E. My Sparrow hit an Iraqi MiG-21 head-on. There was no evasive action: apparently, the pilot was not aware of the attack. My wingman's missile failed to track, so I ordered him to stay close as we dropped to engage the rest of the Iraqi formation which was turning West at high speed. My RIO took great pleasure informing me that the Iraqis were running away, and I concluded: "Our reputation must have preceded us!"

Not a second later, two MiG-21s turned back into us: these Iraqi pilots were neither cowards nor runaways.

I switched on HEAT, and we rolled wide left in an effort to take a position behind and above the enemy. The Iraqis would have none of it, as they started climbing, rolling hard in order to keep us in sight and come out behind our position. But, they were too late to save themselves. Or so I thought...

Our two Tomcats were now at maximum power: I pulled our typical high-AOA manoeuvre and pointed the nose of my F-14A at the rear MiG-21, getting a good tone: we were now bellow 15,000ft and descending. Just as I fired a Sidewinder my wingman came over the radio screaming: 'Engine stall!'

The Sidewinder I fired hit the MiG but any joy I felt was now replaced by the urgent concern for my wingman. Yaw characteristics of the F-14 after the loss of one engine at low altitude and high AOA are not good. My wingman, himself short of launching a Sidewinder at the other MiG, was now using all the skill he possessed to keep his Tomcat from departing. To make matters worse, we lost the sight of the other MiG: there was little I could do without relocating him. Ages - actually few seconds - later, we detected him on our radar running away - most likely low on fuel.

As my wingman's right engine stalled he was just above 10,000 feet, at maximum dry power, speed of almost 520 knots, and about 45° AOA. The pilot knew he had only ten seconds to take actions that would save his aircraft, and maybe even his and the life of his RIO. He later said:

'I had increased my airspeed to close on the lead MiG just as you were firing a missile at the rear one, and I was getting tone from AIM-9 in my helmet headset. So I did not hear the engine stall audible warning, but I did see the warning light next to my HUD not a moment too soon. I stopped breathing then, immediately shut the stalling engine down while pulling the stick all the way back and then holding it there. My F-14 then pitched up to between 70 and 75° AOA, and developed a yaw-rate of 44-46° per second to the right side, with airspeed dropping off to 82 knots. I initiated recovery, the plane responded well, and ten seconds later we were flying level, on one engine, and with my heart at 10.000 beats per second. My RIO was scanning the skies as if nothing happened....'

During the post-flight inspection we found out that the mid-compression bypass values remained closed on one of the engines, shutting it down during the climb. Normally, this value opens at high AOA to improve engine stall margin, and then you lose 13-14% of engine thrust. However, this time it failed.

We had some luck on this mission, as both our F-14s and both crews survived and were to fly many more times and show the Iraqis they could not operate freely - nor without cost - over Iran.



Or this (from the same book):

Our Tomcats detected four suspected Iraqi interceptors only 70km south from our tankers, and flying into an area between our tankers and the Phantoms. Using the Combat Tree equipment and RWRs, the Tomcat-crews determined that these were four MiG-23s, most likely MiG-23MFs from Qayyarah West AB, where we knew the Iraqis stationed their first squadron equipped with this type, as well as 16 MiG-21s. They informed Col. Afshar about this development and he did a few fast calculations, determining that within the following 10-15 minutes the MiGs would run out of fuel and be forced to return back to their base: While they would be doing so, they would fly head-on into our Phantoms as these would try to return to the tankers - themselves also short of fuel. Under normal circumstances, our Phantom-pilots would have little problem to kill these MiGs. However, on this mission, the fuel was life, and the ability of the Phantoms to reach tankers undisturbed and without any detours was crucial for success, as these also carried no air-to-air missiles.

Col. Afshar acted swiftly: he ordered the F-14A 'Sultan 7', piloted by Capt. K. Sedgi, and "Sultan 8", his wingman, Capt. M. Taibbe, to intercept the MiG-23s and destroy them before these could cross the path of returning Phantoms.

There was no time to waste: without hesitation, the Tomcats joined a formation and turned south, climbing to 15.000ft. Checking their systems, Sedigh and Taibbe concluded the Iraqis had no clue about their presence, and therefore continued climbing to 20.000ft, from where they would have several attack options. It was obvious the Iraqi pilots were enjoying a boring CAP-mission: the two Iranian Tomcat-pilots had to ensure they would not be bored for much longer. There was no other way to clear the path for the Sultan F-4 Phantoms: the thought of the six crews running out of fuel and having to eject over Iraq was simply unacceptable.

The two F-14s joined in a combat spread formation, which is a very flexible, mutual-support formation developed by the USN, and which worked much better than the formations usually used by our F-4-squadrons. It allowed much freedom of action during intercept and air-to-air combat. In this formation, whichever Tomcat gets the first radar- or visual-contact has tactical lead and can run the flight for the intercept, but lead can always be passed onto another F-14 - if necessary. Such tactics were never used in our F-4 and F-5 units: there the flight-leader was always the leader and gave all orders. Sultan 7 was armed with two AIM-54As, three AIM-7s, and two AIM-9s. Sultan 8 was loaded with six AIM-7s and two AIM-9s; the two Tomcats thus had longer-ranged weapons and better combat persistence than four MiGs. Yet, much of their success depended on not giving away their presence too early - especially not in order to cause the IrAF to scramble even more interceptors until Sultan Phantoms would be refuelled and the whole Iranian package safe out of the Iraqi airspace.

While they continued climbing to 22.000ft, Capt. Sedghi's RIO quickly ran down his checklist for all rear-cockpit equipment so to get ready for combat: all armament controls (except for Sidewinders and guns), sensor controls, keyboard panels, and all communication panels are on RIO's left console; electronic countermeasures and navigational display, as well as the panel for IFF-interrogator were on his right console. The RIO operated the AWG-9 in track-while-scan mode, keeping contact with all four MiGs all two seconds as the radar swept across the sky and stored the last known position of targets n the computer, and the computer then estimated where they will appear next, just like magic. The heading, speed, and altitude of Iraqi MiGs, as well as launch-zone priorities were all determined by Tomcat's weapons systems. There was only one draw-back in this situation: the TWS is useful only for deployment of AIM-54 missiles, of which only two were carried, and both by Sultan 7.

At about 56km from Iraqi fighters the computer of Sedghi's AWG-9 established a track file on the Iraqi fighters: these were flying in a split formation, made up of two pairs behind each other: the leading pair was to be the first target. Capt. Sedigh ordered the noise-jammers of the two F-14As to be turned on, but his ECM-system failed just seconds after it was activated, so the one on Capt. Taibbe's Tomcat had to cover both aircraft.

At 33km from the Iraqis, Capt. Sedghi cleared his RIO to "light off" the AIM-54s when ready: and he was very ready! The First AIM-54 fired and then began to climb towards the Iraqi MiGs, which were underway at 30.000ft. Some eight seconds later the second Phoenix followed.

The MiGs continued straight ahead as if on a routine, peace-time training flight: it was clear they still had no clue about the presence of their enemies nearby. We knew that the MiGs as supplied to Iraqis carried only a most rudimentary radar and RWRs. As the crews of two F-14s tracked the progress of the two AIM-54s, their radios became alive with a call from "Sultan 9", informing them about the Iraqi MiGs being informed about the attack against al-Gayyar AB, and had been ordered to turn west to attempt to intercept Iranian strikers. Iraqi MiGs were about to turn: not now!

To our luck, the Iraqis never had time to obey their orders: the first AIM-54 slammed into the lead MiG-23, blotting it out immediately. Sedghi's RIO simply exclaimed: "The Iraqi ******* is gone!" The second Phoenix, however, appeared to have missed, as the MiG for which it was intended continued on after it should have been hit. Apparently.

Seconds later the RIO noticed the MiG was actually diving towards the ground at a high speed and obviously out of control. Sultan 8 confirmed the kill, reporting the AIM-54 must have crippled the second MiG-23 by early or late proximity fuse detonation of the warhead. In either case, the large warhead did exactly what it was designed for: until today we have no doubts about what a remarkable weapon the F-14A and AIM-54A systems truly are.




Can you cite any source where one can read the following (from article "Les tigres du Shah", published in Le Fana de l'Aviation magazine, volume 418 & 419 - September/October 2004, published in French):

- It was during December 1982 that I first heard talk of an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Aviation Squadron made up of 12 zealot pilots, all completely "loyal to Imam Khomeini," on Radio Tehran; "the voice of Islam." Radio Tehran reported as soon as theses zealot pilots were ready, their sacrifices would make their mark, and that all the peoples of Iran should be commending theses pilots and the "martyr-creating" land of Iran. I guess that speaker would not talk about martyrs so freely if he had seen some of the scenes we were frequently seeing in the front....

I had heard earlier some rumours about some kind of a "suicide" Guard unit being in formation, but had thought little about it, thinking it was only some sort of propaganda tool against the Iraqis. But, these rumours would not go away!

Then, on 21 October 1983, after flying an F-4E from TFB.4 to TFB.9 in Bandar Abbas - to reinforce their Phantom force - I learned that our High Command had ordered the 91st TFW at that base to be reinforced to 20 F-4Es and three F-4Ds. By our standards, this was a very powerful force, and the reason for this assignment was what our Headquarters had seen as a growing threat against Iran: the United States Navy operations in the Persian Gulf.

Well, there I was, waiting at TFB.9 for a ride back to Dezful, when I - to my considerable amazement - became aware of a number of F-5As and F-5Bs parked inside hardened aircraft shelters at the eastern end of the base. I knew the IRIAF still had F-5Bs on hand, and also a few RF-5As, but I thought the F-5A days were long over. So, I went out to ask about these planes.

To my even greater amazement I was to find out these fighters belonged to a Revolutionary Guards Suicide Squadron!

This unit was in training and they were to be used against the US Navy shipping. I was told this Guards Suicide Squadron had at first been given two F-4Es and a single F-4D to use for their mission, but the Guard pilots proved incapable of mastering the Phantom, and they were replaced by four F-5Bs, three F-5As and a single F-5E. I was also told that the IRIAF's High Command had raised hell over three irreplaceable F-4s being assigned to a suicide unit and had reclaimed them, instead giving the IRGC a larger number of fighters which would be easier to fly - and relatively more dispensable.

"Easier to fly," turned into a base joke. The F-5s given to the IRGC were in very bad condition and the IRIAF was slow to supply parts to this unit for repairs. So, this Pasdaran Suicide Squadron flew very little before being disbanded.

But, they flew and they were trained nevertheless, and that with full support from the IRIAF, and my feeling was that these "Kamikaze" fighters would have been a serious and potent threat to USN warships. We had at least one daily flight by Lockheed P-3F Orion reconnaissance aircraft over the USN warships in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman from TFB.9, and we knew where to hunt for Americans: they were not expecting any attacks, so that surprise was on our side. And, I saw two IRGC F-5Bs take off and practice suicide air attacks during my visit to TFB.9. They would fly low and fast, and then climb straight up to about 300 to 400 metres, then dive down at very high speed at their imaginary targets. After seeing this I knew under right conditions the very manoeuvrable F-5 with their low visual and radar cross-section could have been a very serious threat.

Many months later I learned that this Guards Suicide Squadron returned its F-5s to the IRIAF and its pilots were assigned to other duties. The rumour was that the IRIAF Commanders had sent a message to Khomeini himself, which - to the best of my knowledge - told Khomeini that his officials seemed openly hostile to the idea of a modern professional air force which was all that stood between the Iranian people and the full onslaught of the Iraqi AF and army. Another version suggests that our High Command sent a message to Khomeini, telling him that if the IRGC pilots attacked even a single USN warship, the probable catastrophic outcome would be that within 48 hours the Americans would attack Iranian air bases and obliterate the IRIAF, leaving the country at their and the Iraqi mercy.

Whatever was the case, the suicide squadron was no more.


Let me know should I post few examples more: I'm certainly looking forward for your answers...



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

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

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

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

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

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

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> I know Mr Cooper will blast me for this, but oh well, he has before.
>
> Have any of the aviators that were in the 'fleet'(USN or USAF or even USMC)
> during or after the Iran-Irag conflict heard of any of the results that Mr.
> Cooper talks about in his book?
>
> I find that even tho I have an SI clearance, and was flying the F-14, even in a
> test squadron(VX-4), I never heard of these F-14 results..
>
> Anyone??
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

To give Tom the benefit of the doubt, are there any reasonable
scenarios that would account for a limited dissemination of the
information? Couldn't we just blame compartmentalization? Tom,
unfortunately, indicates that studies of Iranian F-14 attrition and
performance were conducted, unsurprisingly under top secret
conditions. However, these conditions weren't sufficiently classified
because he discusses them in the Iran/Iraq book. The book however was
published over a decade after the war's end (and the cold war's end as
well), so who's to say how classified the information was. Actually,
I would have liked to have heard Tom answer that very question, and
unfortunately the book avoids that issue entirely.

Tom,

A couple things I've noticed about your defenses:

1. You bring up references that I've never heard of--like Mike Spick, Yefim
Gordon, and Major Ronald Berquist. Who? Qualifications?

2. Aside from SPEAR, I've never heard of many of your sources.

3. You tend to attempt to baffle with size.

I'm still skeptical of your accounts given the sources. I'm know there was
an air war in the Iran-Iraq war. I'm still in doubt of the claims, but I'm
grateful for an interesting thread.

--Woody

On 11/9/04 1:35 PM, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

> 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?

On 11/9/04 8:29 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> I know Mr Cooper will blast me for this, but oh well, he has before.
>
> Have any of the aviators that were in the 'fleet'(USN or USAF or even USMC)
> during or after the Iran-Irag conflict heard of any of the results that Mr.
> Cooper talks about in his book?
>

Nope. I've never heard of them.

> I find that even tho I have an SI clearance, and was flying the F-14, even in
> a
> test squadron(VX-4), I never heard of these F-14 results..
>

I never had the IrAF Tomcat painted as a formidable machine. Sounds a bit
overblown to me.

--Woody

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> Very nice, sharp one. I've already noticed your attack on amazon.com.

My 'attack' was a critique...which they removed, along with the other
'attacks'
that posted legitimate critisism of that volume. The reviewers'
postings (we are not coordinating our critiques, a lot of readers
simply hate your book) have been removed, but your book retains its
3/5 star rating. There were several lenghty critiques 'attacking' that
book before someone cried to amazon.com and had all those reviews
pulled.

>
> Now that you're here and so willing to "inform" the people about me, I
> hope you'll be kind to answer me the following questions:

I've been a silent lurker for years, wholly content on being informed,
but your condescending, yet at the same time undistinguished, postings
bring me out of the woodwork. Yes, you motivate me, because you remind
me of a heckler at a baseball game. You know batting averages, but you
don't know baseball. You attack pro players, you anger them. You said
so yourself. That Iraqi Air Force general you supposedly lectured, and
had in fits, for instance.
His was one of the most heavily funded and professional air forces on
earth. He was a pro, no matter who's team he's on. Those guys, before
the sanctions were pretty good ****s. And you 'lecture' him about the
Iranian F-14 threat? It was they who fought those F-14s, you think
they'd have an idea on their adversaries' capabilities? Not to mention
the posters here who are or were aviators or otherwise in the
business. Your often condescending attitude, when coupled with your
shallow knowledge (usually lorded over the aviators), deserve a
rebuttal of mightier ferocity. Maybe if you had some good ****, you
can dance around, but when you scatter ramblings of your quality, you
get on a lot of peoples' nerves.


>
> - Would you be so kind to mention all these sources which we plagiarized
> so much - regardles in which of Farzad's and my publications?

Not one of your volumes are to be found in my library. I am carefull
where I throw my scarce dollars, and will peruse a book thoroughly
before I get it. So I can say I cannot do a word for word relation of
your sins, from recall alone, my boy. But in your Iran-Iraq war book
80-88, you deal with the Iranian purchase of the F-14 system. From the
top of my head, (I don't have your bunk in my shelves), you simply
lifted the portion that Gillchrist describes in "Tomcat!", chapter 7,
page 48, in which a distinguised fighter pilot Capt. John Mitchell,
travells to Iran to sell that system to the Iranian Air staff. Your
version of that story in your book is a near word for word lifting.
But during the looting, it fell in your pages in the broken grammar
and low-minded prose that characterize that whole volume.

Let me in on something; I know Schiffer likes to be quick in putting
out books in the market. Most of their stuff is excellent (like
"Tomcat!"), but some others, like their flight helmet collector books,
are very inconsistent throughout and have an unmistakable tinge of
amatureness...but how did they let such a bloken engrish manuscript
like that Iran 80-88 book pass the editor and into press? I had high
hopes for that volume when I saw it, but since I was familiar with
your bunk on the net, the surprise for me was how Schiffer would allow
a work of such low standard printed under their trademark? To other
readers, go find this book somewhere, and read it. My money is on,
that you won't be walking out with it.


> - Which of published sources used for "Iran-Iraq War in the Air,
> 1980-1988" was not mentioned in footnotes?

Since it's irrefutable where you purloined the John Mitchell visit on
your Iran book (from Gillchrist; it's almost word for word), I never
found it cited anywhere in the book. There are others I cannot recall,
and I don't have your book to wade through. On the next edition, if
there is one, try enclosing the following:

Gillchrist, Paul T. "Tomcat!", Schiffer Publishing Ltd., Altgen, PA.
1994


> - Where am I known as a plagiarizer?

See my example above. And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk. And after
several months up there, everyone's postings were removed! Not to
worry, I could write them to remedy this. The consumers have rights,
you know.


>
> - Better yet: "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" was written by two
> authors. How do you know that it's me who should be a plagiarizer of us
> two?

Where do we draw the line on who was responsible for the bunk? In your
numerous postings punting about this piece (which I sat through
quietly, knowing the very low and amaturish quality of your work from
your website), you perpetually slink away from mentioning your
partner. Now when the dogs are uncaged, you want to climb on his
shoulders?


>
> - Then, I'd like you to be so kind and explain me the following:
>
> Can you cite the source of such stories like this (excerpt from "Iranian
> F-4 Phantom Units in Combat"):

Have not read it. I will find it, and read it. If its good and I like
it, I'll search between the sofa cushions for some coin. I have read
most of the Osprey aviation catalogue, dating from the early 80s. But
this new series looks like a rush job, with Osprey just flooding the
market with shallow works that do not share the earlier volumes'
thoroughness. Compare Mersky's F-8 in Combat to those latest releases
on Davies' F-15 and F-18 Units in OIF Combat. As a sidenote, I've come
across Davies' other works on the F-15 and they are very amaturish
too...aren't both of you from that depthless website ACIG.org which is
mostly dripping with tables of shootdowns (un-cited, do we see a
pattern here?) and articles, again mostly uncited, which are on the
whole unaccomplished. Visit acig.org, people, and see for yourselves.

These books you mention have just been released, and I have not had
the opportunity to see them. Tom, despite my foul, vile tone, I really
don't hate you on a personal level. Seems like a contradiction, but
that's USENET for ya.
These are just opinions of mine, and I'm open to change. I will look
at your other work, and maybe I'll have some for myself.

Good luck.

> Tom Cooper
> Freelance aviation journalist
> Author:

(You mean co-author? Oh right, you only have a co-author when people
start to unravell your...)

> - Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title detail.php/title=S7875
>
> - Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title detail.php/title=S6550
>
> - Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title detail.php/title=S6585
>
> - African MiGs
> http://www.acig.org/afmig/
>
> - Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> ************************************************** ***********************

Woody,

re. references:

-->> Mike Spick: in article "Odd Couple", published in AirForces Monthly
magazine, volume April 2004 (p.94 thru 98) stated (citate from p.98,
paragraph 3):

"Never Clashed
The two (meaning MiG-21 and F-5E; my note) never clashed in close
combat...."

During the Iran-Iraq War there were several dozens of air combats between
IrAF MiG-21MF/bis and IRIAF F-5Es. All were fought at close ranges because
neither aircraft was equipped with BVRAAMs. To keep the long story short,
there is an Iraqi MiG-21MF-pilot with four confirmed kills against Iranian
F-5Es scored during the first month of the war (all kills are known to the
last detail, including date, time, place, names of involved crews and their
fate, weapon used etc.). Another example: there is also an IRIAF F-5E-pilot
who claimed four IrAF MiG-21s shot down during a single engagement; three of
these are confirmed (again: full data available).


-->> Yefim Gordon: in one of his newest books, "Sukhoi Su-7/-17/-20/-22;
Soviet Fighter and Fighter-Bomber Family", (ISBN 1 85780 108 3) published by
Aerofax earlier this year, spends exactly two sentences to describe the
deployment of Iraqi Su-20/22s in the war against Iran. As follows:

1.) Page 127:
"Iraq used the Su-20 and Su-22 fairly successfully in the war against Iran
in 1980-88.

2.) Page 150:
"Together with their fixed-geometry stablemates (the Su-7BMKs) they were
actively used in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988; amont other things, they
staged chemical attacks against Iranian troops, using bombs filled with
nerve agents."

There is not a word about Iraqi Su-22M-2/-3Ks equipped with Kh-28s, Kh-29s
and SPS-141 ECM-pods supplied from East Germany being used against Iran or
about their performance, or any other "special" weapons tested on this type
during that war. Not a word about the fact that Su-20/22s were IrAF
warhorses of that conflict, that they flew over 20.000 combat sorties,
suffered quite some losses (over 30 of these are registered down to the last
detail - including extensive pictorial evidence of wreckage) etc...


-->> Maj. Ronald Bergquist (USAF) published "The Role of Airpower in the
Iran-Iraq War", while working as research associate on the Airpower Research
Institute, at Maxwell AFB. The first print was in 1982; I've got a copy from
the second print run, published by Air University Press, in 1988.

This was probably the best book to this topic published until 2003.


> 2. Aside from SPEAR, I've never heard of many of your sources.

OK, here the full data of the last batch of stuff I've got:

- NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 250021Z Jul 87
- NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr 88
- NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 152005Z Jun 88
- SPEARTIP 014-90, IRAQ FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITIES
- NAVOPINTCEN memo of 6 Jul 88 (the last would be highly interesting for
anybody researching about the downing of IranAir Airbus by USS Vinncennes).


> 3. You tend to attempt to baffle with size.

Well, sorry; I do not attempt anything else but to explain. And this can
often not be done within a single sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob-<< To give Tom the benefit of the doubt, are there any reasonable
scenarios that would account for a limited dissemination of the
information? Couldn't we just blame compartmentalization? >><BR><BR>

Doubt it. We knew quite a lot about the F-14s capability after Iran fell. We
knew who helped to maintain them and how they received spare parts.

We knew a lot about other airforces and their engagments, but never a word
about the 'success' of Iran against the airforces of Iraq, using the Turkey.
think if it existed, it would be all over the USN...since we flew the aircraft.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Well, under "critique" I understand something constructive. What you're
doing is nothing but an attack, you like it or not.

As second: your attack from amazon.com was NOT removed. Neither me nor
anybody else complained, and therefore it was not removed - as can be seen
by everybody who opens the page here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764316699/002-9539152-6778422?v=glance

So, here I must conclude that you're lying.

You're also lying regarding any other "lenghty critiques" being removed from
there: all the critiques are still there where they were posted. Not only on
amazon.com but also on amazon.co.uk.

As next, it is well-known to us that there are several readers who do not
hate that book but me - and who repeatedly attack my person by prentending
of attacking the book. The silly thing about this is that all four of them
are well-known to me: two because they plagiarized me, and two because they
attacked the book although they never read it.

> I've been a silent lurker for years, wholly content on being informed,
> but your condescending, yet at the same time undistinguished, postings
> bring me out of the woodwork. Yes, you motivate me, because you remind
> me of a heckler at a baseball game.

I asked some very specific questions above. For example if you can show the
evidence for any of my or the works I co-authored being plagiarisations.

You have not shown anything of this kind. This paragraph above can therefore
not be taken seriously.

> You know batting averages, but you don't know baseball.

That's right: I can't play baseball.

> You attack pro players, you anger them. You said
> so yourself. That Iraqi Air Force general you supposedly lectured, and
> had in fits, for instance.
> His was one of the most heavily funded and professional air forces on
> earth. He was a pro, no matter who's team he's on. Those guys, before
> the sanctions were pretty good ****s. And you 'lecture' him about the
> Iranian F-14 threat? It was they who fought those F-14s, you think
> they'd have an idea on their adversaries' capabilities?

Well, from exchange with him I'm sure that he is still convinced that
Iranian F-14s were not armed with AIM-7s. Would you like to join him in that
opinion?

> Not to mention
> the posters here who are or were aviators or otherwise in the
> business. Your often condescending attitude, when coupled with your
> shallow knowledge (usually lorded over the aviators), deserve a
> rebuttal of mightier ferocity.

How about some evidence or examples - instead of empty ranting and offense?

>> - Would you be so kind to mention all these sources which we plagiarized
>> so much - regardles in which of Farzad's and my publications?
>
> Not one of your volumes are to be found in my library. I am carefull
> where I throw my scarce dollars, and will peruse a book thoroughly
> before I get it. So I can say I cannot do a word for word relation of
> your sins, from recall alone, my boy.

With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment about
it?

> But in your Iran-Iraq war book
> 80-88, you deal with the Iranian purchase of the F-14 system. From the
> top of my head, (I don't have your bunk in my shelves), you simply
> lifted the portion that Gillchrist describes in "Tomcat!", chapter 7,
> page 48, in which a distinguised fighter pilot Capt. John Mitchell,
> travells to Iran to sell that system to the Iranian Air staff. Your
> version of that story in your book is a near word for word lifting.
> But during the looting, it fell in your pages in the broken grammar
> and low-minded prose that characterize that whole volume.

Just a second: in the post above you stated (citate), "His Iran-Iraq 80-88
book draws massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word
for word plagerism...he absolutely did not cite Adm. Gillchrist."

Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
Gillcrist's name wrongly).

But OK. That's at least specific enough. On the page 33 of "Iran-Iraq War in
the Air, 1980-1988", there is one sentence taken from that book. On the end
of it is sign for footnote 39.... and the footnote 39 (p.54) says: "TOMCAT!
The Grumman F-14 Story, by R.Adm (USN. Ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist."

Surprise, surprise, isn't it, (un)sharp one?

For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.

Eventually, you ough to admit appearing pretty silly regarding this, then in
your eagerness to attack me you failed to notice that both books were
published by Schiffer Military Publishing, Atglen. Do you seriously consider
them so stupid to accept a manuscript that is plagiarising one of their
earlier books?

> Let me in on something; I know Schiffer likes to be quick in putting
> out books in the market. Most of their stuff is excellent (like
> "Tomcat!"), but some others, like their flight helmet collector books,
> are very inconsistent throughout and have an unmistakable tinge of
> amatureness...but how did they let such a bloken engrish manuscript
> like that Iran 80-88 book pass the editor and into press?

Well, perhaps you could contact Mr. Ian Robertson (editor) and ask him. I
never got any answer regarding this.

>> - Which of published sources used for "Iran-Iraq War in the Air,
>> 1980-1988" was not mentioned in footnotes?
>
> Since it's irrefutable where you purloined the John Mitchell visit on
> your Iran book (from Gillchrist; it's almost word for word), I never
> found it cited anywhere in the book.

When one refuses to see something with his own eyes...

> There are others I cannot recall,
> and I don't have your book to wade through. On the next edition, if
> there is one, try enclosing the following:
>
> Gillchrist, Paul T. "Tomcat!", Schiffer Publishing Ltd., Altgen, PA.
> 1994

It is there: in footnote 39 and footnote 43 of that chapter, just for
example. You're only so much involved in attempt to attack me, that you
oversaw this completely.

Should you want to continue in the same style, I'll obviously have to post
here also something like 30 other footnotes from that book...

What makes me wonder here, how would you then describe such books like "Red
Wings over Yalu", which consist of footnotes and references to almost 40%?

>> - Where am I known as a plagiarizer?
>
> See my example above.

That's not the answer to question I asked. So, here again: WHERE am I "known
as plagiarizer"?

> And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
> and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
> for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk.

All the "critiques" are still there. Why don't you go there and see them for
yourself?

> And after
> several months up there, everyone's postings were removed!

This is a lie, and you know that. Nothing was removed.

Besides, what is with the following review:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no3/book7_e.asp


> Not to worry, I could write them to remedy this. The consumers have
> rights, you know.

So also those who are wrongly blamed for plagiarisation...


>> - Better yet: "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" was written by two
>> authors. How do you know that it's me who should be a plagiarizer of us
>> two?
>
> Where do we draw the line on who was responsible for the bunk? In your
> numerous postings punting about this piece (which I sat through
> quietly, knowing the very low and amaturish quality of your work from
> your website), you perpetually slink away from mentioning your
> partner. Now when the dogs are uncaged, you want to climb on his
> shoulders?

As you can see, I'm here, with my full name.

Oh, and who are you and what are your qualifications?

>> - Then, I'd like you to be so kind and explain me the following:
>>
>> Can you cite the source of such stories like this (excerpt from "Iranian
>> F-4 Phantom Units in Combat"):
>
> Have not read it. I will find it, and read it. If its good and I like
> it, I'll search between the sofa cushions for some coin. I have read
> most of the Osprey aviation catalogue, dating from the early 80s. But
> this new series looks like a rush job, with Osprey just flooding the
> market with shallow works that do not share the earlier volumes'
> thoroughness. Compare Mersky's F-8 in Combat to those latest releases
> on Davies' F-15 and F-18 Units in OIF Combat. As a sidenote, I've come
> across Davies' other works on the F-15 and they are very amaturish
> too...aren't both of you from that depthless website ACIG.org which is
> mostly dripping with tables of shootdowns (un-cited, do we see a
> pattern here?) and articles, again mostly uncited, which are on the
> whole unaccomplished. Visit acig.org, people, and see for yourselves.

Thanks for your PR for acig.org. In that sence, here few of usual reactions
re. our website:

- "This has to be one of the best places for information & INTELLIGENT
discussion on aircraft. Keep up the good work guys!"

- "Just want to say that I've been printing out articles from ACIG Journal
and from the topic threads like it's going out of style. :-) Tons of good
info here enough for several books. Just want to send you my bill for
printer paper and print cartridges! ;-)"

- Great information, great forum, great people, great articles and great
artwork.

- "Hey guys, just wanted to say thanks for having a place like this. I'm a
xxxxxxx (job-description deleted), so it's great to be able to sift through
all the data available and apply it (like BVR tactics). Just wanted to say
thanks to all who put this on and keep it gonig; this is really a fantastic
resource. Awesome!"

- Thats just QUALITY!! Thanks for that!


Regarding your attacks about that website plagiarising anybody: how about
showing us at least 1 example?

Re. Steve Davies: Steve is meanwhile acknowledged as THE expert when it
comes to USAF F-15s, with excellent contacts within the USAF F-15C/E
circles, a number of related books, articles and even TV-shows. If he's what
you describe as "amateur", I'm gladly joining him in that status.

On the other side, the book "USN F/A-18 Hornet Units in Operation Iraqi
Freedom" was written by Mr. Tony Holmes, editor of "Combat Aircraft" series
at Osprey. Given your mistake in this case, and also all the nonsence you
wrote above, I'd say that you are not only mixing quite a lot of stuffs, but
also gladly producing "facts" you prefer.

> These books you mention have just been released, and I have not had
> the opportunity to see them. Tom, despite my foul, vile tone, I really
> don't hate you on a personal level. Seems like a contradiction, but
> that's USENET for ya.

Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a campaign
of spreading lies about me.

> These are just opinions of mine, and I'm open to change. I will look at
> your other work, and maybe I'll have some for myself.

To be sincere and direct - as I always am: I don't care the least about your
opinion, nor am I trying to change it.

I'm just putting your lies straight.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Pechs,
could it be there is a difference in the way the USN saw some things and the
USAF did it?

What I noticed is a considerable difference in style of descriptions in USN
and USAF documents.

For example, paragraph 5 of NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr 88
(related by ONI under FOIA) states:

THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE WENT FOR OVER A YEAR FROM OCT 86 TO NOV 87 WITH OUT A
DETECTED AIR-AIR MISSILE FIRING. SUDDENLY IN NOVEMBER 87 F-4'S FROM BUSHEHR
ENGAGED IRAQI AIRCRAFT NORTH OF BANDAR KHOMEYNI WITH MULTIPLE AAM'S. IN
EARLY FEB 88 AN IRIAF F-14 APPARENTLY DOWNED AN F-1 SE OF FARSI ISLAND AND
ANOTHER F-14 FIRED AT TWO TARGETS 3 HOURS LATER. SINCE THEN BOTH F-4 AND
F-14 AIRCRAFT HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASED AGGRESSIVENESS AND WILLINGNESS TO
EMPLY AAMS. MOST RECENTLY IN MID-MARCH AN F-14 DOWNED AN F-1 DURING AN
ATTACK ON KHARG ISLAND IN AND AN F-14 MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE A C-601
LAUCNHED FROM A H-6D. A BANDAR ABBAS F-4 POSSIBLY LAUNCHED AN AAM AGAINST
TWO F-1's RTB AFTER A RAID ON LAVAN ISLAND IN EARLY APRIL.

As you can read here, there are lots of guesses here about results of
missiles fired from Iranian fighters.

USAF documents, on the contrary, are usually very clear, stating exactly how
many missiles were fired and what was shot down.

Also, I never found any kind of such a ridiculous statement in any USAF
document, explaining that Iranians fired not a single AAM between October
1986 and November 1987.

I purposedly say "ridiculous" here, because - and this is just a SINGLE
example that comes to my mind right now - on 1 September 1987 the USN picked
up an Iraqi Mirage F.1 pilot from the waters of the lower Persian Gulf.
There are documents about this case and there are even photos of the Iraqi
pilot in the National Archives. The Iraqi spent two days in his dinghy -
after being shot down (by an AAM) in an air combat with F-14 flown by the
top IRIAF ace of the whole war, late Lt.Gen. Jalal Zandi. And that in full
view of several USN warships from a convoy to Kuwait that was passing by.

How comes the SUITLAND MD message I cited above states that not a single AAM
was fired by IRIAF in air combats with Iraqis between October 1986 and
November 1987?

Finally, the document above is not mentioning by a single word an air battle
that occurred over Khark on 18 March 1988 - in full view of no less but five
USN warships. In course of this engagement - according to rumorus I've heard
from USAF and IRIAF sources - IRIAF F-14s fired five AIM-54s, downing at
least a Tu-22 and a MiG-25R. When I asked ONI for release of related
documents, they said I should go and ask State Department. State Department
said they can't release them.

Why?

What to hell can be so secret in these documents - and since when is State
Department responsible for USN documents describing air battles between Iran
and Iraq?

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

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

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

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

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

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************
"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Rob-<< To give Tom the benefit of the doubt, are there any reasonable
> scenarios that would account for a limited dissemination of the
> information? Couldn't we just blame compartmentalization? >><BR><BR>
>
> Doubt it. We knew quite a lot about the F-14s capability after Iran fell.
> We
> knew who helped to maintain them and how they received spare parts.
>
> We knew a lot about other airforces and their engagments, but never a word
> about the 'success' of Iran against the airforces of Iraq, using the
> Turkey.
> think if it existed, it would be all over the USN...since we flew the
> aircraft.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
> Phlyer

On 11/10/04 7:52, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

> Woody,
>
<SNIP>

Sorry, Tom. I should have been more clear--or perhaps I misunderstood the
scope of your posts. I don't have a lot of dispute with either F-5's
fighting MiG-21's or the use of Su-xx's by either side.

I do disagree with the Tomcat stuff.

>
> -->> Maj. Ronald Bergquist (USAF) published "The Role of Airpower in the
> Iran-Iraq War", while working as research associate on the Airpower Research
> Institute, at Maxwell AFB. The first print was in 1982; I've got a copy from
> the second print run, published by Air University Press, in 1988.
>
> This was probably the best book to this topic published until 2003.
>
>> 2. Aside from SPEAR, I've never heard of many of your sources.
>
> OK, here the full data of the last batch of stuff I've got:
>
> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 250021Z Jul 87
> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr 88
> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 152005Z Jun 88
> - SPEARTIP 014-90, IRAQ FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITIES
> - NAVOPINTCEN memo of 6 Jul 88 (the last would be highly interesting for
> anybody researching about the downing of IranAir Airbus by USS Vinncennes).
>

Subject lines? What are these messages about? I tend to agree with Pechs.
Had the Tomcat been as successful as you claim, I think we would have heard
about it.

As I said before. Claims on all sides during a war tend to be exaggerated.
The way the USN keeps it under control is by tape review in the debrief.
It's amazing what the tapes bring out with regard to veracity.

>> 3. You tend to attempt to baffle with size.
>
> Well, sorry; I do not attempt anything else but to explain. And this can
> often not be done within a single sentence.

As soon as I posted, I knew that would be your response. Fair enough.

--Woody

Woody,
topics are as follows:

- NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 250021Z Jul 87: Request for Persian Gulf
Related Info
- NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr 88: Speartip 009-88 Persian
Gulf Fighter Developments
- NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 152005Z Jun 88: IRIAF F-14 reaction to
CVBG F-14 Ops (this document was almost completely blotted out)
- SPEARTIP 014-90, IRAQ FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITIES
- NAVOPINTCEN memo of 6 Jul 88: Iranian F-14 Air-to-Ground Bombing and ASM
Capability

For an excerpt from SUTITLAND MD message from April 1988 about air combats
involving F-14s please check my answer to Pechs' post two sub-threads
bellow.

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

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

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

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

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

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************
"Woody Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/10/04 7:52, in article , "Tom
> Cooper" > wrote:
>
>> Woody,
>>
> <SNIP>
>
> Sorry, Tom. I should have been more clear--or perhaps I misunderstood the
> scope of your posts. I don't have a lot of dispute with either F-5's
> fighting MiG-21's or the use of Su-xx's by either side.
>
> I do disagree with the Tomcat stuff.
>
>>
>> -->> Maj. Ronald Bergquist (USAF) published "The Role of Airpower in the
>> Iran-Iraq War", while working as research associate on the Airpower
>> Research
>> Institute, at Maxwell AFB. The first print was in 1982; I've got a copy
>> from
>> the second print run, published by Air University Press, in 1988.
>>
>> This was probably the best book to this topic published until 2003.
>>
>>> 2. Aside from SPEAR, I've never heard of many of your sources.
>>
>> OK, here the full data of the last batch of stuff I've got:
>>
>> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 250021Z Jul 87
>> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr 88
>> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 152005Z Jun 88
>> - SPEARTIP 014-90, IRAQ FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITIES
>> - NAVOPINTCEN memo of 6 Jul 88 (the last would be highly interesting for
>> anybody researching about the downing of IranAir Airbus by USS
>> Vinncennes).
>>
>
> Subject lines? What are these messages about? I tend to agree with
> Pechs.
> Had the Tomcat been as successful as you claim, I think we would have
> heard
> about it.
>
> As I said before. Claims on all sides during a war tend to be
> exaggerated.
> The way the USN keeps it under control is by tape review in the debrief.
> It's amazing what the tapes bring out with regard to veracity.
>
>>> 3. You tend to attempt to baffle with size.
>>
>> Well, sorry; I do not attempt anything else but to explain. And this can
>> often not be done within a single sentence.
>
> As soon as I posted, I knew that would be your response. Fair enough.
>
> --Woody
>

On 11/10/04 3:25 PM, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

> Woody,
> topics are as follows:
>
> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 250021Z Jul 87: Request for Persian Gulf
> Related Info
> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr 88: Speartip 009-88 Persian
> Gulf Fighter Developments
> - NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 152005Z Jun 88: IRIAF F-14 reaction to
> CVBG F-14 Ops (this document was almost completely blotted out)
> - SPEARTIP 014-90, IRAQ FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITIES
> - NAVOPINTCEN memo of 6 Jul 88: Iranian F-14 Air-to-Ground Bombing and ASM
> Capability
>
> For an excerpt from SUTITLAND MD message from April 1988 about air combats
> involving F-14s please check my answer to Pechs' post two sub-threads
> bellow.

I read it.

From 102038Z Apr 88, I gather that (a), the Intel bubba's don't want to
compromise sources and (b), they're goal is to characterize the
aggressiveness of the combatants--not report news.

As to the "ridiculous" statement, the key word that you quoted from the
message was: "DETECTED." The SPEAR document apparently contains very
little interpretation and analysis.

You state that the Iraqi pilot and the Iranian ace had a fight that occurred
"in full view" of Navy surface ships. What does that mean? Were USN crews
witnesses to the fight? If so, why did the Iraqi pilot spend so many days
in his raft?

On the 18 March 1988 battle, you again use the phrase "in full view" again.
Why would you think that they would see 5 AIM-54's? Why would you believe
"rumors" over the SPEAR message? Why do you suggest some sort of
conspiracy?

--Woody

>From: (Pechs1)
>Newsgroups:

>It was, I saw briefs on the Tomcat 21 when I was in VX-4...late 80s but the
>USN
>didn't buy it.
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>

Do I know you?

I was on the COMFITAEWWING Staff from 1978-1982. Visited VX-4 twice and every
other squadron at least 4 times.

VFP-63 which I was in in 72 and 73 we visited only once.

VF-124 which had Crusaders when I was there switched to Tomcats so i only
visited them to check records.

I was just a lowly enlisted puke.

> Well, under "critique" I understand something constructive. What you're
> doing is nothing but an attack, you like it or not.

You remind me of people I have been tasked to assist in writing during
my school years. Your work is so botched it's beyond salvage. If you
want to call it an attack it is up to you. But if you really want a
full-blown critique, loan me a review copy, and I'll send it back with
my notes.

>
> As second: your attack from amazon.com was NOT removed. Neither me nor
> anybody else complained, and therefore it was not removed - as can be seen
> by everybody who opens the page here:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764316699/002-9539152-6778422?v=glance
>
> So, here I must conclude that you're lying.

I checked two days ago, and they were gone. Maybe they put it back at
the behest of people who read this thread?



> As next, it is well-known to us that there are several readers who do not
> hate that book but me - and who repeatedly attack my person by prentending
> of attacking the book. The silly thing about this is that all four of them
> are well-known to me: two because they plagiarized me, and two because they
> attacked the book although they never read it.

I don't give a what who else you've ****ed off, but it's reassuring
its a big group and certainly growing, no doubt. You never replied
about you attacking genuine experts in this field. In this thread
alone, you've shown your typical condescending attitude towards ppl
who've been there, done that.

That poster, who I do not know personally but have had the pleasure of
reading his posts over the years, was, as I understand it, Executive
Officer of VX-4, "The Evaluators", the US Navy's fighter test
squadron. They tested and developed tactics and technolgy for the
Navy's tactical air force. He was also Commanding Officer of VF-126,
one of the elite adversary/aggressor squadrons, who no doubt were
immersed in knowledge of bad guy capabilities. From his postings, I
understand he was also posted as an Instructor Pilot in exchange with
the USAF, teaching them to fly F-4 Phantoms, not to mention long
service with the Fleet in F-4s and F-14s. Now, answer this: How is it
you know more about fighter tactics than he? You're a being a ****ing
joke, Tom Cooper. Everyone can see it, but you!


> That's right: I can't play baseball.
Add to that:
1)You cannot be humbled, ever.
2)You cannot recognize superior authority in knowledge, when faced.
You only respond in personal taunts.
3)You can't penetrate Military Aviation writing in-depth. Your work is
superficial, and amaturish.
4)You won't admit errors.

> Well, from exchange with him I'm sure that he is still convinced that
> Iranian F-14s were not armed with AIM-7s. Would you like to join him in that
> opinion?
Let's see. He was a serving general officer in one of the most
professional air forces in that region. Iraq had recieved satelite
targeting data from the US, and other military intel during that
conflict. You would think whatever intel on the F-14 they were unable
to ascertain locally, were provided to them also by Uncle Sam. Now who
do I believe, him or some egotistical amature with a very weak base
of work?

> With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment about
> it?
Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
library.


> Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
> book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
> Gillcrist's name wrongly).

Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
word.

> But OK. That's at least specific enough. On the page 33 of "Iran-Iraq War in
> the Air, 1980-1988", there is one sentence taken from that book. On the end
> of it is sign for footnote 39.... and the footnote 39 (p.54) says: "TOMCAT!
> The Grumman F-14 Story, by R.Adm (USN. Ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist."

Yes, that is true. I admit I missed that piece, but that was several
months ago that I read your book. And I do remember now what I thought
as I read that book: Tom Cooper quoted and gave credit for that
single line. But how does he explain not giving credit for the several
hundred words he knocked off "Tomcat!"? I was very familiar with that
Gillchrist book and knew right away you were poaching off his volume.
It was near word-for-word plagerism.

It certainly read like the authors were presenting the information
regarding the F-14 pre-sale drama as their own. If I had pulled that
**** in class, the professor would have ripped me to shreads. The
conclusion reached in this case is that, a)He cannot write
competently; b)He flat stole those passages. Judging from what I have
seen and know of you, its 50/50 of each.

Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
other people's work.

> For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
> elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.
>
A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.

> Eventually, you ough to admit appearing pretty silly regarding this, then in
> your eagerness to attack me you failed to notice that both books were
> published by Schiffer Military Publishing, Atglen. Do you seriously consider
> them so stupid to accept a manuscript that is plagiarising one of their
> earlier books?

Well, that Iran-Iraq war book was written so poorly, I don't think
they even read it, or if they did, released it anyway, thinking it can
float on the weight of their reputation. Once you post the relevant
chapter I have asked you to, I'm going to renew my contact with
Admiral Gillchrist, and maybe he'll take it up with Schiffer.


> Well, perhaps you could contact Mr. Ian Robertson (editor) and ask him. I
> never got any answer regarding this.

You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
that list? Putting your writing career in a coffin is not something I
would relish (I don't hack people for the fun of it), but if that's
what you want me to do... Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
able to rub off.



> When one refuses to see something with his own eyes...

He speaks from his ass-hole, like you are so prone on doing.


> It is there: in footnote 39 and footnote 43 of that chapter, just for
> example. You're only so much involved in attempt to attack me, that you
> oversaw this completely.
>
> Should you want to continue in the same style, I'll obviously have to post
> here also something like 30 other footnotes from that book...
>
> What makes me wonder here, how would you then describe such books like "Red
> Wings over Yalu", which consist of footnotes and references to almost 40%?
>

From what I recall, your footnotes were as shallow as the text, and
added nothing to further understanding of the topic. Vague is the word
I would employ to give name to your footnotes.



> That's not the answer to question I asked. So, here again: WHERE am I "known
> as plagiarizer"?

You're known as a plagerizer to me. Before I read that book, you were
known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.

>
> > And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
> > and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
> > for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk.
>
> All the "critiques" are still there. Why don't you go there and see them for
> yourself?
>

I'll take your word for it. Why is it everyone who voices their
disapproval of that God damn book has to be somehow after you? You act
like we're a cabal of sorts. Amusing.

> > And after
> > several months up there, everyone's postings were removed!
>
> This is a lie, and you know that. Nothing was removed.
>
> Besides, what is with the following review:
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no3/book7_e.asp

Wow, a review from a Canadian Military Journal. Oh golly gee wiz
Wally, I'll read it as soon as I'm finished reading the review on
bobsledding by the prestigious Kuwaiti Forum of Winter Sporting. Try
again, ace.


>
> As you can see, I'm here, with my full name.
>
> Oh, and who are you and what are your qualifications?

Oh little old me? I'm just a thumbsucker who likes jet books. Got any
good ones do ya?

> Re. Steve Davies: Steve is meanwhile acknowledged as THE expert when it
> comes to USAF F-15s, with excellent contacts within the USAF F-15C/E
> circles, a number of related books, articles and even TV-shows. If he's what
> you describe as "amateur", I'm gladly joining him in that status.

I thought THE expert[s] when it comes to USAF F-15s were at Nellis?
I'm happy you've given your pal a reach-around. It's absolutely
touching and a tear jerker when you folk do that. I'm sure he thinks
you're THE expert on non-aligned air arms too. ONI, AIA and DIA have
nothing on you and your posse at www.acig.org. You heard it here
first! And screw those dozens of reputable authors out there who just
don't know what the hell they're screaming about, not when ACIG.org
and Tom Cooper are around.


> Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a campaign
> of spreading lies about me.

Ah Yep. You got me. You won't tell on me will ya? Any other
conspiracies you care to share?


> To be sincere and direct - as I always am: I don't care the least about your
> opinion, nor am I trying to change it.
>
> I'm just putting your lies straight.

You just post that stuff I asked you to, regarding the F-14 sale.
Don't you get creative now and dare add anything. Better yet, post a
scan of the pages. I'll be ready with my ****. Or you can just save us
all time and fess up. Save your rep while you can, friend. Because
once you post those jpegs, you've just flushed yourself down the hole.
But let's not let it reach that, buddy. Just tell me you messed up a
little and won't do it again, promise-to-God, cross-your-fingers
hope-to-die, and I'll get off your case.

Or just don't respond to this post, and I'll get your message. I'll
fade off, and you won't hear from me ever.


> ************************************************** ***********************
> Tom Cooper
> Freelance aviation journalist
>
> Author:
> - Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S7875
>
> - Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6550
>
> - Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
> http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S6585
>
> - African MiGs
> http://www.acig.org/afmig/
>
> - Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
> http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
> ************************************************** ***********************

> From 102038Z Apr 88, I gather that (a), the Intel bubba's don't want to
> compromise sources and (b), they're goal is to characterize the
> aggressiveness of the combatants--not report news.

a) That's right. All paragraphs including any kind of indication about
sources are deleted.

b) Could be - at least in that one case. I used it, however, rather for an
example of usual style in USN reports.

> As to the "ridiculous" statement, the key word that you quoted from the
> message was: "DETECTED." The SPEAR document apparently contains very
> little interpretation and analysis.

Well, I guess this is a matter of standpoind. IMHO, there are still enough
guesses in the Speartip I mentioned above.

> You state that the Iraqi pilot and the Iranian ace had a fight that
> occurred
> "in full view" of Navy surface ships. What does that mean? Were USN
> crews
> witnesses to the fight? If so, why did the Iraqi pilot spend so many days
> in his raft?

Yep; the USN witnessed the fight. Unclear is only if they actually saw it or
tracked it on their radars. AFAIK, they did not notice ejection. Two days
later the pilot was found deeper inside the Hormuz Straits by other group of
USN vessels.

> On the 18 March 1988 battle, you again use the phrase "in full view"
> again.
> Why would you think that they would see 5 AIM-54's? Why would you believe
> "rumors" over the SPEAR message? Why do you suggest some sort of
> conspiracy?

First I have to correct myself here: the correct date of this battle is
March 19th, 1988.

From what I've learned so far on this and the previous two days there was a
small SAG centered around USS Guam (LPH-9) in the area between Khark Island
and Bahrain. What I'm sure of is that crews of these ships have withnessed
the Iraqi three-wave strike against Khark, flown in the early morning,
morning and afternoon of 18 March 1988, then after the success of the first
Iraqi strike specific skipper of one of USN warships declared the Iraqi
attack for, "deplorable by nature", and subsequently the whole SAG turned
around. When the next Iraqi wave (flown around 09:00hr AM local time)
appeared the IRIAF interceptors were airborne and the USN warships
recorded - I don't know yet by which means (if I would know this I would not
need any documents from ONI) - firings of five AIM-54s.

Now, it's not so that I'm "believing rumours over SPEAR message": I haven't
got any corresponding documents released.

My remark was in regards to the NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr
88 which is NOT mentioning this battle from 18 March 1988, even if it
mentions a number of other, smaller engagements. If you don't mind me
repeating the content of paragraph 5:

THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE WENT FOR OVER A YEAR FROM OCT 86 TO NOV 87 WITH OUT A
DETECTED AIR-AIR MISSILE FIRING. SUDDENLY IN NOVEMBER 87 F-4'S FROM BUSHEHR
ENGAGED IRAQI AIRCRAFT NORTH OF BANDAR KHOMEYNI WITH MULTIPLE AAM'S. IN
EARLY FEB 88 AN IRIAF F-14 APPARENTLY DOWNED AN F-1 SE OF FARSI ISLAND AND
ANOTHER F-14 FIRED AT TWO TARGETS 3 HOURS LATER. SINCE THEN BOTH F-4 AND
F-14 AIRCRAFT HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASED AGGRESSIVENESS AND WILLINGNESS TO
EMPLOY AAMS. MOST RECENTLY IN MID-MARCH AN F-14 DOWNED AN F-1 DURING AN
ATTACK ON KHARG ISLAND IN AND AN F-14 MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE A C-601
LAUCNHED FROM A H-6D. A BANDAR ABBAS F-4 POSSIBLY LAUNCHED AN AAM AGAINST
TWO F-1'S RTB AFTER A RAID ON LAVAN ISLAND IN EARLY APRIL.

As you can see, they mention a number of different engagements. The problem
is, however, they don't mention a number of other engagements.

For example, the only day in "early Feb 88" on which F-14s engaged Mirage
F.1s in two different engagements over the Persian Gulf was 9th of February.
That, however, is not a date I'd describe as "early February".

Besides, why is this report not mentioning air battles that occurred over
the Gulf on 2nd and 5th February? IMHO, this would really be "early Feb
88"...This is simply making me unsure if March 19th can be considered as
"mid-March".

If yes, there is no claim for downing of any IrAF Mirage F.1EQ known in
IRIAF on this date (not only in their F-14-, but also in F-4- or F-5
communities). One was shot down by Tomcats on 18th March (there are photos
of wreckage, name of captured IrAF pilot and corresponding narrative from
IRIAF pilot), but that was over central Iran, not over Khark. During the
strike on 19th March the IrAF Mirage units are not known to have suffered
any losses.

Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say that I
simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back. Can
you say what could be a reason?

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

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

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

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

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

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

nimbill-<< Do I know you?

I was on the COMFITAEWWING Staff from 1978-1982. Visited VX-4 twice and every
other squadron at least 4 times >><BR><BR>

<< I was just a lowly enlisted puke. >><BR><BR>

Don't know. I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Nov '89. CO/XO of VF-126 until
Spet of 1992.

No 'lowly enlisted pukes'., IMO, I worked for a salty E-6 in my first
squadron..AMS1 Eubanks...and many others in the next 16 years or so.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

I guess nobody else has heard of these results either. The CO I worked for at
VX-4 was CO Topgun just before that. These two echelon 2 commands would have
certainly heard of these results if they were indeed factual. As XO of VX-4, I
was privy to any and all information that the CO was...

I also completed the Strike Leaders course at Strike U...during my DH tour in
VF-31..F-14s...never heard of any of this during that either...

So as I have 'discussed' with Mr. Cooper. I jes don get it...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Mr Cooper-<< Pechs,
could it be there is a difference in the way the USN saw some things and the
USAF did it? >><BR><BR>

Doubt it. Information is information, particularly when the F-14 was
involved.As per my other post, I was privy to much SI info at VX-4, with a
former CO of Topgun as my CO(Rick Ludwig). The squadron was not into keeping
information to itself, as we were in the operational test worl of the F-14
A/A+/D and F/A-18.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

> Doubt it. Information is information, particularly when the F-14 was
> involved.As per my other post, I was privy to much SI info at VX-4, with a
> former CO of Topgun as my CO(Rick Ludwig). The squadron was not into
keeping
> information to itself, as we were in the operational test worl of the F-14
> A/A+/D and F/A-18.

One more item to throw into the mix. Could've/would've the U.S. have know
about these results until very recently? Could've/would've they interviewed
Iranian and Iraqi participants? I'm thinking about the recent intelligence
debacle over W.O.M.D. and thinking that if mistake was possible (and to
avoid a can of worms, let's assume it was), surely it's possible that they
missed significant information about the Iran-Iraq air war? To make it
clear, I'm still skeptical about Tom's claims, and am a strong believer in
evidence (like most here). I'm just offering another point that I think may
be relevant. Great discussion so far!

Tony

Mr/Mrs Sharpest- I respectfully suggest that instead of rude comments, and
statements based on your (shown to be) faulty memory, how about just
providing us with concrete evidence one way or another? If he plagiarised
large sections of material, it should be easy for you to find the matching
references and post them or cite the specific details. It's ridiculous to
ask an author to defend himself at every turn from every crack pot.
Innocent until proven guilty puts the burden of evidence on you. And for
the record, I trust a review by a Canadian Military Journal a lot more than
I trust some unknown individual on a newsgroup. Regards,

Tony

> You remind me of people I have been tasked to assist in writing during
> my school years. Your work is so botched it's beyond salvage. If you
> want to call it an attack it is up to you. But if you really want a
> full-blown critique, loan me a review copy, and I'll send it back with
> my notes.

Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one... If
you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send you a
copy.

Otherwise, further above I have shown that your attack from amazon.com was
NOT removed, and that you were lying.

Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
"about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the book,
it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.

So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?

>> As second: your attack from amazon.com was NOT removed. Neither me nor
>> anybody else complained, and therefore it was not removed - as can be
>> seen
>> by everybody who opens the page here:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764316699/002-9539152-6778422?v=glance
>>
>> So, here I must conclude that you're lying.
>
> I checked two days ago, and they were gone. Maybe they put it back at
> the behest of people who read this thread?

Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
there.

However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of course...

Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
removed from amazon.com?

(Remember that you can easily contact amazon.com and ask them to show you
such evidence.)

>> As next, it is well-known to us that there are several readers who do not
>> hate that book but me - and who repeatedly attack my person by
>> prentending
>> of attacking the book. The silly thing about this is that all four of
>> them
>> are well-known to me: two because they plagiarized me, and two because
>> they
>> attacked the book although they never read it.
>
> I don't give a what who else you've ****ed off, but it's reassuring
> its a big group and certainly growing, no doubt. You never replied
> about you attacking genuine experts in this field. In this thread
> alone, you've shown your typical condescending attitude towards ppl
> who've been there, done that.

Well, given that the whole print run of that book was meanwhile sold out, I
wonder how "big" this "group" really is...

This aside from the fact that you seem unable to agree with yourself if it's
you alone who's criticising publications I authored or co-authored, or if
there is some "group"...

> That poster, who I do not know personally but have had the pleasure of
> reading his posts over the years, was, as I understand it, Executive
> Officer of VX-4, "The Evaluators", the US Navy's fighter test
> squadron. They tested and developed tactics and technolgy for the
> Navy's tactical air force. He was also Commanding Officer of VF-126,
> one of the elite adversary/aggressor squadrons, who no doubt were
> immersed in knowledge of bad guy capabilities. From his postings, I
> understand he was also posted as an Instructor Pilot in exchange with
> the USAF, teaching them to fly F-4 Phantoms, not to mention long
> service with the Fleet in F-4s and F-14s. Now, answer this: How is it
> you know more about fighter tactics than he?

Your main problem appears to be a very bad memory. The man I think you're
talking about posted several times into this thread too.

However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single word
in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.

Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is evidence
for this as well.

>> That's right: I can't play baseball.
> Add to that:
> 1)You cannot be humbled, ever.

Certainly not by characters like you.

> 2)You cannot recognize superior authority in knowledge, when faced.

I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare between
Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
internet. That's right.

> You only respond in personal taunts.

Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you? Where
did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I haven't
said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
your constructions and lies as such?

> 3)You can't penetrate Military Aviation writing in-depth.

Can you provide evidence that I ever even attempted to do so?

>Your work is
> superficial, and amaturish.

I guess it makes no sence to ask you to provide evidence for this?

> 4)You won't admit errors.

Can you point me at any of my errors (except if you consider publishing of
that first book by Schiffer as one)?

>> Well, from exchange with him I'm sure that he is still convinced that
>> Iranian F-14s were not armed with AIM-7s. Would you like to join him in
>> that
>> opinion?
> Let's see. He was a serving general officer in one of the most
> professional air forces in that region. Iraq had recieved satelite
> targeting data from the US, and other military intel during that
> conflict. You would think whatever intel on the F-14 they were unable
> to ascertain locally, were provided to them also by Uncle Sam. Now who
> do I believe, him or some egotistical amature with a very weak base
> of work?

Can you provide evidence that Iranian F-14s were not compatible with AIM-7s?

>> With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
>> about
>> it?
> Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
> fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
> that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
> superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
> insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
> piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
> library.

As said: you haven't read it. Period.

>> Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
>> book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
>> Gillcrist's name wrongly).
>
> Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
> damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
> word.

Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions from
Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".

Then you said, "portion".

Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
words).

Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
from that book?

>> But OK. That's at least specific enough. On the page 33 of "Iran-Iraq War
>> in
>> the Air, 1980-1988", there is one sentence taken from that book. On the
>> end
>> of it is sign for footnote 39.... and the footnote 39 (p.54) says:
>> "TOMCAT!
>> The Grumman F-14 Story, by R.Adm (USN. Ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist."
>
> Yes, that is true. I admit I missed that piece, but that was several
> months ago that I read your book. And I do remember now what I thought
> as I read that book: Tom Cooper quoted and gave credit for that
> single line.

Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are you
unable of understanding what you write?

On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied word
for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws
massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post you
stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last message
above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress" that
we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
sentences in question came.

Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".

Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this whole
issue?

> It certainly read like the authors were presenting the information
> regarding the F-14 pre-sale drama as their own.

I have shown you above that this is not truth: do you have any evidence of
the contrary?

> Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
> I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
> serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
> how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
> will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
> corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
> what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
> other people's work.

I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I still
have the original manuscript in electronic form.

But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have to
deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this, or
you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if you
continue in the same style....

>> For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
>> elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.
>>
> A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
> quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
> noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
> for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
> be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.

Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?

>> Eventually, you ough to admit appearing pretty silly regarding this, then
>> in
>> your eagerness to attack me you failed to notice that both books were
>> published by Schiffer Military Publishing, Atglen. Do you seriously
>> consider
>> them so stupid to accept a manuscript that is plagiarising one of their
>> earlier books?
>
> Well, that Iran-Iraq war book was written so poorly, I don't think
> they even read it, or if they did, released it anyway, thinking it can
> float on the weight of their reputation. Once you post the relevant
> chapter I have asked you to, I'm going to renew my contact with
> Admiral Gillchrist, and maybe he'll take it up with Schiffer.

Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist and
bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know the
contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the book
via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.

Be so kind to do that - and then post the results here: I'm really curious
about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you to
present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.

>> Well, perhaps you could contact Mr. Ian Robertson (editor) and ask him. I
>> never got any answer regarding this.
>
> You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
> that list?

Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
responsible people at Osprey.

> Putting your writing career in a coffin is not something I
> would relish (I don't hack people for the fun of it), but if that's
> what you want me to do...

Feel free to do so whenever you have time. Just, do us all a favour and
finally provide some kind of evidence.

I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the relevant
authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
committed.... ?

> Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
> alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
> able to rub off.

Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. All
you need to do is to - instead of posting lies about me here - write several
e-mails to all these contacts of yours and then to my publishers.

I'm affraid, however, that you might need some evidence for your
accusations, so - please - take care to first find any.

>> It is there: in footnote 39 and footnote 43 of that chapter, just for
>> example. You're only so much involved in attempt to attack me, that you
>> oversaw this completely.
>>
>> Should you want to continue in the same style, I'll obviously have to
>> post
>> here also something like 30 other footnotes from that book...
>>
>> What makes me wonder here, how would you then describe such books like
>> "Red
>> Wings over Yalu", which consist of footnotes and references to almost
>> 40%?
>
> From what I recall, your footnotes were as shallow as the text, and
> added nothing to further understanding of the topic. Vague is the word
> I would employ to give name to your footnotes.

Surely, surely. Can you provide evidence for the footnotes in "Iran-Iraq War
in the Air, 1980-1988" being "vague"?

Or is it now so that you "don't remember" (i.e. haven't read) them - like
you "don't remember" those mentioning Mr. Gillcrist's book?

>> That's not the answer to question I asked. So, here again: WHERE am I
>> "known
>> as plagiarizer"?
>
> You're known as a plagerizer to me.

Well, that much about that. Do you remember what I said about the meaning of
your opinion to me?

> Before I read that book, you were
> known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
> Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
> others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
> don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.

And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less issued
a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
explain here?

>> > And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
>> > and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
>> > for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk.
>>
>> All the "critiques" are still there. Why don't you go there and see them
>> for
>> yourself?
>
> I'll take your word for it. Why is it everyone who voices their
> disapproval of that God damn book has to be somehow after you?

The answer is simple: you are none of "them", and because you are completely
unable to provide any kind of evidence for your ridiculous accusations.

All you posted here so far are insults and lies which were easy to counter.
Post evidence that ANYTHING I ever authored or co-authored is a
plagiarisation - or be a man and admit that you are lying.

>> > And after
>> > several months up there, everyone's postings were removed!
>>
>> This is a lie, and you know that. Nothing was removed.
>>
>> Besides, what is with the following review:
>> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol4/no3/book7_e.asp
>
> Wow, a review from a Canadian Military Journal. Oh golly gee wiz
> Wally, I'll read it as soon as I'm finished reading the review on
> bobsledding by the prestigious Kuwaiti Forum of Winter Sporting. Try
> again, ace.

Have you read that review - so to be able to explain us the worth of opinion
by somebody who is teaching War Studies at Royal Military College?

>> As you can see, I'm here, with my full name.
>>
>> Oh, and who are you and what are your qualifications?
>
> Oh little old me? I'm just a thumbsucker who likes jet books. Got any
> good ones do ya?

Do you recall what I said how much I care about your opinion?

>> Re. Steve Davies: Steve is meanwhile acknowledged as THE expert when it
>> comes to USAF F-15s, with excellent contacts within the USAF F-15C/E
>> circles, a number of related books, articles and even TV-shows. If he's
>> what
>> you describe as "amateur", I'm gladly joining him in that status.
>
> I thought THE expert[s] when it comes to USAF F-15s were at Nellis?
> I'm happy you've given your pal a reach-around. It's absolutely
> touching and a tear jerker when you folk do that. I'm sure he thinks
> you're THE expert on non-aligned air arms too. ONI, AIA and DIA have
> nothing on you and your posse at www.acig.org. You heard it here
> first! And screw those dozens of reputable authors out there who just
> don't know what the hell they're screaming about, not when ACIG.org
> and Tom Cooper are around.

Very convincing, that's sure....

BTW, who are all these "reputable authors"?

>> Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
>> campaign
>> of spreading lies about me.
>
> Ah Yep. You got me. You won't tell on me will ya? Any other
> conspiracies you care to share?

Twisting my words again? Did _I_ use a word "conspiracy" here or is it you?
Take a look above and see what I said.

Could you at least once do slightly better but constructing, offending and
lying?

>> To be sincere and direct - as I always am: I don't care the least about
>> your
>> opinion, nor am I trying to change it.
>>
>> I'm just putting your lies straight.
>
> You just post that stuff I asked you to, regarding the F-14 sale.

You're accusing me, so you have to provide evidence. If you are unable to
find evidence for your statements, you're lying - and my lawyer is going to
take care about the rest.

> Don't you get creative now and dare add anything. Better yet, post a
> scan of the pages. I'll be ready with my ****. Or you can just save us
> all time and fess up. Save your rep while you can, friend. Because
> once you post those jpegs, you've just flushed yourself down the hole.
> But let's not let it reach that, buddy. Just tell me you messed up a
> little and won't do it again, promise-to-God, cross-your-fingers
> hope-to-die, and I'll get off your case.

I'm here and waiting for your evidence: can you finally show some or is
****ing against the wind the best you can?


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

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

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

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

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

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

Pechs,
do I understand your post correctly: not even people at Topgun have ever got
documents of this kind?

In the introduction it stands it was supplied to following authorities:

- COMOPTEVFOR NORFOLK VA
- HAWTS ONE YUMA AZ
- AIRTEVRON FOUR
- AIRTEVRON FIVE
- CJTFME
- USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL
- USCINCCENT INTELCEN MACDILL AFB FL
- CINCPACFLT PEARL HARBOUR HI
- COMSEVENTHFLT
- CTF SEVEN ZERO
- CTG EIGHT ZERO ZERO PT ONE
- USS ENTERPRISE
- COMCARAIRWING ELEVEN
- INFO FTD WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH
- DIRNSA FT GEORGE G MEADE MD
- CIA WASHINGTON DC
- NAVSTRKWARCEN FALLON NV
- NAVFITWEPSCOL SAN DIEGO CA

Security clearance: S E C R E T NOFORN WNINTEL

If you think I'm constructing anything I can easily e-mail you a scan of the
document mentioned above so you can check if it's real or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 11/11/04 7:38 AM, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

>
> Now, it's not so that I'm "believing rumours over SPEAR message": I haven't
> got any corresponding documents released.
>
> My remark was in regards to the NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr
> 88 which is NOT mentioning this battle from 18 March 1988, even if it
> mentions a number of other, smaller engagements. If you don't mind me
> repeating the content of paragraph 5:
>
> THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE WENT FOR OVER A YEAR FROM OCT 86 TO NOV 87 WITH OUT A
> DETECTED AIR-AIR MISSILE FIRING. SUDDENLY IN NOVEMBER 87 F-4'S FROM BUSHEHR
> ENGAGED IRAQI AIRCRAFT NORTH OF BANDAR KHOMEYNI WITH MULTIPLE AAM'S. IN
> EARLY FEB 88 AN IRIAF F-14 APPARENTLY DOWNED AN F-1 SE OF FARSI ISLAND AND
> ANOTHER F-14 FIRED AT TWO TARGETS 3 HOURS LATER. SINCE THEN BOTH F-4 AND
> F-14 AIRCRAFT HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASED AGGRESSIVENESS AND WILLINGNESS TO
> EMPLOY AAMS. MOST RECENTLY IN MID-MARCH AN F-14 DOWNED AN F-1 DURING AN
> ATTACK ON KHARG ISLAND IN AND AN F-14 MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE A C-601
> LAUCNHED FROM A H-6D. A BANDAR ABBAS F-4 POSSIBLY LAUNCHED AN AAM AGAINST
> TWO F-1'S RTB AFTER A RAID ON LAVAN ISLAND IN EARLY APRIL.
>

The key word here is "DETECTED."

> As you can see, they mention a number of different engagements. The problem
> is, however, they don't mention a number of other engagements.
>
> For example, the only day in "early Feb 88" on which F-14s engaged Mirage
> F.1s in two different engagements over the Persian Gulf was 9th of February.
> That, however, is not a date I'd describe as "early February".
>

Perhaps they weren't "DETECTED."

> Besides, why is this report not mentioning air battles that occurred over
> the Gulf on 2nd and 5th February? IMHO, this would really be "early Feb
> 88"...This is simply making me unsure if March 19th can be considered as
> "mid-March".
>

You're expecting a comprehensive report with historical accuracy. What
you're reading though is an intelligence report where SPEAR is reporting
only on the verifiable incidents a short time later without the benefit of
your historical sources. Make sense?

The document isn't inaccurate. It's probably just incomplete.

> If yes, there is no claim for downing of any IrAF Mirage F.1EQ known in
> IRIAF on this date (not only in their F-14-, but also in F-4- or F-5
> communities). One was shot down by Tomcats on 18th March (there are photos
> of wreckage, name of captured IrAF pilot and corresponding narrative from
> IRIAF pilot), but that was over central Iran, not over Khark. During the
> strike on 19th March the IrAF Mirage units are not known to have suffered
> any losses.
>
> Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say that I
> simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back. Can
> you say what could be a reason?

I could, but then I'd have to kill you.

--Woody

On 11/11/04 7:38 AM, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

<SNIP>
>> You state that the Iraqi pilot and the Iranian ace had a fight that
>> occurred
>> "in full view" of Navy surface ships. What does that mean? Were USN
>> crews
>> witnesses to the fight? If so, why did the Iraqi pilot spend so many days
>> in his raft?
>
> Yep; the USN witnessed the fight. Unclear is only if they actually saw it or
> tracked it on their radars. AFAIK, they did not notice ejection. Two days
> later the pilot was found deeper inside the Hormuz Straits by other group of
> USN vessels.
>

I can nearly guarantee that nobody "eye-witnessed" it. The altitude and
ranges that these things occur at--especially in the daytime--make them
difficult to keep track of visually.

<SNIP>
> From what I've learned so far on this and the previous two days there was a
> small SAG centered around USS Guam (LPH-9) in the area between Khark Island
> and Bahrain. What I'm sure of is that crews of these ships have withnessed
> the Iraqi three-wave strike against Khark, flown in the early morning,
> morning and afternoon of 18 March 1988, then after the success of the first
> Iraqi strike specific skipper of one of USN warships declared the Iraqi
> attack for, "deplorable by nature", and subsequently the whole SAG turned
> around. When the next Iraqi wave (flown around 09:00hr AM local time)
> appeared the IRIAF interceptors were airborne and the USN warships
> recorded - I don't know yet by which means (if I would know this I would not
> need any documents from ONI) - firings of five AIM-54s.
>

You're assuming. Based on the SPEAR message, SOME Navy/intel platform
detected those firings. We don't know how or from what.

--Woody

On 11/11/04 9:33 AM, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

> Pechs,
> do I understand your post correctly: not even people at Topgun have ever got
> documents of this kind?
>
> In the introduction it stands it was supplied to following authorities:
>
> - COMOPTEVFOR NORFOLK VA
> - HAWTS ONE YUMA AZ
> - AIRTEVRON FOUR
> - AIRTEVRON FIVE
> - CJTFME
> - USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL
> - USCINCCENT INTELCEN MACDILL AFB FL
> - CINCPACFLT PEARL HARBOUR HI
> - COMSEVENTHFLT
> - CTF SEVEN ZERO
> - CTG EIGHT ZERO ZERO PT ONE
> - USS ENTERPRISE
> - COMCARAIRWING ELEVEN
> - INFO FTD WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH
> - DIRNSA FT GEORGE G MEADE MD
> - CIA WASHINGTON DC
> - NAVSTRKWARCEN FALLON NV
> - NAVFITWEPSCOL SAN DIEGO CA
>
> Security clearance: S E C R E T NOFORN WNINTEL
>
> If you think I'm constructing anything I can easily e-mail you a scan of the
> document mentioned above so you can check if it's real or not.

Do you know what these PLAD's mean, Tom?

--Woody

> Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
> wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one... If
> you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send you a
> copy.

I had an opportunity to buy, and I didn't. For the hundreth time, I
told you I
don't buy crap for my library. You said you wanted a full critique and
I offered. You think I've gone through all this trouble just for a
****ing handout?


> Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
> "about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the book,
> it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.
You asshole. I have said I have seen your book and read it. Although
whether it was comprehensible to any human with a minimum of an
average
intellect is in serious question. I am a very well read person, and I
can spot
**** from a mile away. You don't raise a several thousand volume
library
without gaining an insight for quality. I'm going to do a side-by-side
comparison of that chapter(s) and the uncited material from
Gillcrist's "Tomcat!"


> So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?
I've spent the last week posting evidence, you just refuse to budge.
You're going to get nailed good, and you know it. Just because I do
not own your book does not mean I have not read it! There are
bookstores, where one can examine and read, and public libraries out
there you idiot!

I can't wait to prove your Dr. Ambrose-style plagerism. You are in
very deep ****. I'm going to purchase that book post it myself.
And you are going to be one very embarrased person. Then I'm going to
forward
it to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer. Then they're going to spank you
ass for being what you are.

I can see you won't post what I have asked. I will purchase this book
and do the comparison myself. I need the book to hone the fine
details, but the outcome will be the same.

> Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
> one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
> there.
>

Shut the **** up about my review. Amazon accepted it after review and
it stayed
there for awhile. When I checked on it, it was gone. Now you say its
back. I haven't checked but I said I'll take your word for it. Don't
try to pick nits
and change the topic Herr Cooper...we're talking about plagerism here.
That's a very very serious crime.


> However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
> there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of course...
>
> Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
> removed from amazon.com?

Can you provide evidence it was never removed? Do you check that page
every minute for the last 3 months? I think not. So it is you that's
misinformed
and possibly lying.

You were the man who said people were after you. It was very amusing
indeed
to discover you have a fan club out there. You have a talent of making
enemies, Mr. Tom Cooper. That's not very smart, when you're so
vulnerable
on the "Tomcat!"-"Iran-Iraq air war 80-88" plagerism.

My issue here is with the "Iran-Iraq 80-88 air war" book and how you
plagerized
"Tomcat!" by Gillcrist. I was very kind and offered you several
opportunities
to avoid my now-inevitable side-by-side comparison of both texts. Now
everyone will see it and you're going to have some explaining to do to
your Publisher.

> However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single word
> in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
> google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.
>
> Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is evidence
> for this as well.

You had better watch who you call a liar. I don't relish being
defamed, and although I'm a very lenient man, I have my limits. You're
oppening another
vulnerability here, by attacking my person. It's a fact that you
plagerized "Tomcat!" and when I complete the side-by-side comparison
of your Iran Iraq book with Gillcrist's volume, it will be trully
irrefutable. You're going to be known as a plagerizer pretty soon.
By calling me a liar, you're on your way to being a defamer as well.


> I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare between
> Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
> internet. That's right.
You have an unjustifiably high opinion of yourself. Give me a ****ing
break.


> > You only respond in personal taunts.
>
> Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you? Where
> did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I haven't
> said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
> your constructions and lies as such?
You called me a liar. You called me a character. You claim I write my
review in order to gain a free book off you? And all those other
posters
you have insulted over the years...the base of your fan club.


> >> With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
> >> about
> >> it?
> > Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
> > fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
> > that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
> > superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
> > insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
> > piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
> > library.
>
> As said: you haven't read it. Period.

How do you think I discovered your plagerism of "Tomcat!" by Gillcrist
if I did not read your book?


>
> >> Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
> >> book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
> >> Gillcrist's name wrongly).
> >
> > Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
> > damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
> > word.
>
> Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions from
> Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".
>
> Then you said, "portion".
>
> Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
> words).
>
> Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
> from that book?
>
I can. I will define 'massive' as "several sentences". And when I do
my side-by-side comparison, we'll see where you ****ed yourself.
You're going to be in deep ****.

> Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are you
> unable of understanding what you write?

>
> On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
> works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
> this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied word
> for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws
> massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post you
> stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last message
> above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress" that
> we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
> sentences in question came.
>
> Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".
>
> Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this whole
> issue?
>
I admit slight, very minor and inconsequential inconsistencies in my
posts, but the core issue I stand by: The fact that you plagerized is
irrefutable.



> > Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
> > I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
> > serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
> > how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
> > will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
> > corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
> > what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
> > other people's work.
>
> I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I still
> have the original manuscript in electronic form.
>
> But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have to
> deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this, or
> you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if you
> continue in the same style....
Await my upcoming side-by-side review. Please share it with your
lawyer, as I will certainly be sharing it with mine, for review.
Schiffer and Admiral Gillcrist too will recieve a copy.


>
> >> For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
> >> elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.
> >>
> > A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
> > quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
> > noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
> > for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
> > be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.
>
> Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?
No. It is an example of the type of plagerism that exists in your Iran
Iraq book. Quote some here, then use a bunch un-cited. Dr. Ambrose was
badly damaged by this expose; he expired shortly after this incident!


> Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist and
> bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know the
> contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the book
> via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.
You can expect no less from me. This I assure you, Mr. Tom Cooper.

>
> Be so kind to do that - and then post the results here: I'm really curious
> about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you to
> present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.
Await my review.

> > You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
> > that list?
>
> Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
> responsible people at Osprey.
I'll limit this to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer publishing. This is
where
your mistakes lie. But if you insist, I shall forward my report to
Osprey as well.


> I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the relevant
> authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
> committed.... ?
I was not the victim of plagerism here, I am only reporting it. But if
this issue evolves into the legal realm, I can report to you with
absolute confidence that we have the determination and resources
neccessary to fight and prevail.


> > Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
> > alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
> > able to rub off.
>
> Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. I'm not doing the "sinking" nor "attacking" here.
The enemy's vulnerability lies not in the attacker but within himself.


>
> > Before I read that book, you were
> > known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
> > Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
> > others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
> > don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.
>
> And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less issued
> a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
> explain here?
Await my review, and its innevitable dispersion to the relevant
parties.


> >> Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
> >> campaign
> >> of spreading lies about me.
I can say that I now dislike you very much. I was not the victim of
plagerism, but your ideas of me somehow running a 'campaign of
spreading lies' are just
the stuff that defamation lawsuits are made of.

Contact me at
This has become very serious and I wish to discuss it with you in
private.

> Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
> wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one... If
> you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send you a
> copy.

I had an opportunity to buy, and I didn't. For the hundreth time, I
told you I
don't buy crap for my library. You said you wanted a full critique and
I offered. You think I've gone through all this trouble just for a
****ing handout?


> Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
> "about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the book,
> it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.
You asshole. I have said I have seen your book and read it. Although
whether it was comprehensible to any human with a minimum of an
average
intellect is in serious question. I am a very well read person, and I
can spot
**** from a mile away. You don't raise a several thousand volume
library
without gaining an insight for quality. I'm going to do a side-by-side
comparison of that chapter(s) and the uncited material from
Gillcrist's "Tomcat!"


> So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?
I've spent the last week posting evidence, you just refuse to budge.
You're going to get nailed good, and you know it. Just because I do
not own your book does not mean I have not read it! There are
bookstores, where one can examine and read, and public libraries out
there you idiot!

I can't wait to prove your Dr. Ambrose-style plagerism. You are in
very deep ****. I'm going to purchase that book post it myself.
And you are going to be one very embarrased person. Then I'm going to
forward
it to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer. Then they're going to spank you
ass for being what you are.

I can see you won't post what I have asked. I will purchase this book
and do the comparison myself. I need the book to hone the fine
details, but the outcome will be the same.

> Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
> one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
> there.
>

Shut the **** up about my review. Amazon accepted it after review and
it stayed
there for awhile. When I checked on it, it was gone. Now you say its
back. I haven't checked but I said I'll take your word for it. Don't
try to pick nits
and change the topic Herr Cooper...we're talking about plagerism here.
That's a very very serious crime.


> However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
> there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of course...
>
> Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
> removed from amazon.com?

Can you provide evidence it was never removed? Do you check that page
every minute for the last 3 months? I think not. So it is you that's
misinformed
and possibly lying.

You were the man who said people were after you. It was very amusing
indeed
to discover you have a fan club out there. You have a talent of making
enemies, Mr. Tom Cooper. That's not very smart, when you're so
vulnerable
on the "Tomcat!"-"Iran-Iraq air war 80-88" plagerism.

My issue here is with the "Iran-Iraq 80-88 air war" book and how you
plagerized
"Tomcat!" by Gillcrist. I was very kind and offered you several
opportunities
to avoid my now-inevitable side-by-side comparison of both texts. Now
everyone will see it and you're going to have some explaining to do to
your Publisher.

> However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single word
> in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
> google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.
>
> Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is evidence
> for this as well.

You had better watch who you call a liar. I don't relish being
defamed, and although I'm a very lenient man, I have my limits. You're
oppening another
vulnerability here, by attacking my person. It's a fact that you
plagerized "Tomcat!" and when I complete the side-by-side comparison
of your Iran Iraq book with Gillcrist's volume, it will be trully
irrefutable. You're going to be known as a plagerizer pretty soon.
By calling me a liar, you're on your way to being a defamer as well.


> I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare between
> Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
> internet. That's right.
You have an unjustifiably high opinion of yourself. Give me a ****ing
break.


> > You only respond in personal taunts.
>
> Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you? Where
> did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I haven't
> said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
> your constructions and lies as such?
You called me a liar. You called me a character. You claim I write my
review in order to gain a free book off you? And all those other
posters
you have insulted over the years...the base of your fan club.


> >> With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
> >> about
> >> it?
> > Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
> > fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
> > that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
> > superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
> > insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
> > piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
> > library.
>
> As said: you haven't read it. Period.

How do you think I discovered your plagerism of "Tomcat!" by Gillcrist
if I did not read your book?


>
> >> Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
> >> book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
> >> Gillcrist's name wrongly).
> >
> > Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
> > damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
> > word.
>
> Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions from
> Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".
>
> Then you said, "portion".
>
> Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
> words).
>
> Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
> from that book?
>
I can. I will define 'massive' as "several sentences". And when I do
my side-by-side comparison, we'll see where you ****ed yourself.
You're going to be in deep ****.

> Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are you
> unable of understanding what you write?

>
> On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
> works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
> this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied word
> for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws
> massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post you
> stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last message
> above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress" that
> we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
> sentences in question came.
>
> Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".
>
> Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this whole
> issue?
>
I admit slight, very minor and inconsequential inconsistencies in my
posts, but the core issue I stand by: The fact that you plagerized is
irrefutable.



> > Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
> > I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
> > serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
> > how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
> > will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
> > corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
> > what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
> > other people's work.
>
> I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I still
> have the original manuscript in electronic form.
>
> But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have to
> deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this, or
> you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if you
> continue in the same style....
Await my upcoming side-by-side review. Please share it with your
lawyer, as I will certainly be sharing it with mine, for review.
Schiffer and Admiral Gillcrist too will recieve a copy.


>
> >> For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
> >> elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.
> >>
> > A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
> > quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
> > noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
> > for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
> > be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.
>
> Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?
No. It is an example of the type of plagerism that exists in your Iran
Iraq book. Quote some here, then use a bunch un-cited. Dr. Ambrose was
badly damaged by this expose; he expired shortly after this incident!


> Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist and
> bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know the
> contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the book
> via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.
You can expect no less from me. This I assure you, Mr. Tom Cooper.

>
> Be so kind to do that - and then post the results here: I'm really curious
> about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you to
> present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.
Await my review.

> > You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
> > that list?
>
> Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
> responsible people at Osprey.
I'll limit this to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer publishing. This is
where
your mistakes lie. But if you insist, I shall forward my report to
Osprey as well.


> I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the relevant
> authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
> committed.... ?
I was not the victim of plagerism here, I am only reporting it. But if
this issue evolves into the legal realm, I can report to you with
absolute confidence that we have the determination and resources
neccessary to fight and prevail.


> > Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
> > alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
> > able to rub off.
>
> Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. I'm not doing the "sinking" nor "attacking" here.
The enemy's vulnerability lies not in the attacker but within himself.


>
> > Before I read that book, you were
> > known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
> > Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
> > others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
> > don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.
>
> And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less issued
> a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
> explain here?
Await my review, and its innevitable dispersion to the relevant
parties.


> >> Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
> >> campaign
> >> of spreading lies about me.
I can say that I now dislike you very much. I was not the victim of
plagerism, but your ideas of me somehow running a 'campaign of
spreading lies' are just
the stuff that defamation lawsuits are made of.

Contact me at
This has become very serious and I wish to discuss it with you in
private.

> Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
> wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one... If
> you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send you a
> copy.

I had an opportunity to buy, and I didn't. For the hundreth time, I
told you I
don't buy crap for my library. You said you wanted a full critique and
I offered. You think I've gone through all this trouble just for a
****ing handout?


> Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
> "about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the book,
> it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.
You asshole. I have said I have seen your book and read it. Although
whether it was comprehensible to any human with a minimum of an
average
intellect is in serious question. I am a very well read person, and I
can spot
**** from a mile away. You don't raise a several thousand volume
library
without gaining an insight for quality. I'm going to do a side-by-side
comparison of that chapter(s) and the uncited material from
Gillcrist's "Tomcat!"


> So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?
I've spent the last week posting evidence, you just refuse to budge.
You're going to get nailed good, and you know it. Just because I do
not own your book does not mean I have not read it! There are
bookstores, where one can examine and read, and public libraries out
there you idiot!

I can't wait to prove your Dr. Ambrose-style plagerism. You are in
very deep ****. I'm going to purchase that book post it myself.
And you are going to be one very embarrased person. Then I'm going to
forward
it to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer. Then they're going to spank you
ass for being what you are.

I can see you won't post what I have asked. I will purchase this book
and do the comparison myself. I need the book to hone the fine
details, but the outcome will be the same.

> Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
> one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
> there.
>

Shut the **** up about my review. Amazon accepted it after review and
it stayed
there for awhile. When I checked on it, it was gone. Now you say its
back. I haven't checked but I said I'll take your word for it. Don't
try to pick nits
and change the topic Herr Cooper...we're talking about plagerism here.
That's a very very serious crime.


> However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
> there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of course...
>
> Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
> removed from amazon.com?

Can you provide evidence it was never removed? Do you check that page
every minute for the last 3 months? I think not. So it is you that's
misinformed
and possibly lying.

You were the man who said people were after you. It was very amusing
indeed
to discover you have a fan club out there. You have a talent of making
enemies, Mr. Tom Cooper. That's not very smart, when you're so
vulnerable
on the "Tomcat!"-"Iran-Iraq air war 80-88" plagerism.

My issue here is with the "Iran-Iraq 80-88 air war" book and how you
plagerized
"Tomcat!" by Gillcrist. I was very kind and offered you several
opportunities
to avoid my now-inevitable side-by-side comparison of both texts. Now
everyone will see it and you're going to have some explaining to do to
your Publisher.

> However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single word
> in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
> google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.
>
> Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is evidence
> for this as well.

You had better watch who you call a liar. I don't relish being
defamed, and although I'm a very lenient man, I have my limits. You're
oppening another
vulnerability here, by attacking my person. It's a fact that you
plagerized "Tomcat!" and when I complete the side-by-side comparison
of your Iran Iraq book with Gillcrist's volume, it will be trully
irrefutable. You're going to be known as a plagerizer pretty soon.
By calling me a liar, you're on your way to being a defamer as well.


> I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare between
> Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
> internet. That's right.
You have an unjustifiably high opinion of yourself. Give me a ****ing
break.


> > You only respond in personal taunts.
>
> Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you? Where
> did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I haven't
> said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
> your constructions and lies as such?
You called me a liar. You called me a character. You claim I write my
review in order to gain a free book off you? And all those other
posters
you have insulted over the years...the base of your fan club.


> >> With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
> >> about
> >> it?
> > Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
> > fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
> > that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
> > superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
> > insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
> > piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
> > library.
>
> As said: you haven't read it. Period.

How do you think I discovered your plagerism of "Tomcat!" by Gillcrist
if I did not read your book?


>
> >> Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
> >> book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
> >> Gillcrist's name wrongly).
> >
> > Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
> > damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
> > word.
>
> Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions from
> Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".
>
> Then you said, "portion".
>
> Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
> words).
>
> Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
> from that book?
>
I can. I will define 'massive' as "several sentences". And when I do
my side-by-side comparison, we'll see where you ****ed yourself.
You're going to be in deep ****.

> Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are you
> unable of understanding what you write?

>
> On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
> works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
> this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied word
> for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws
> massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post you
> stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last message
> above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress" that
> we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
> sentences in question came.
>
> Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".
>
> Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this whole
> issue?
>
I admit slight, very minor and inconsequential inconsistencies in my
posts, but the core issue I stand by: The fact that you plagerized is
irrefutable.



> > Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
> > I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
> > serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
> > how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
> > will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
> > corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
> > what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
> > other people's work.
>
> I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I still
> have the original manuscript in electronic form.
>
> But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have to
> deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this, or
> you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if you
> continue in the same style....
Await my upcoming side-by-side review. Please share it with your
lawyer, as I will certainly be sharing it with mine, for review.
Schiffer and Admiral Gillcrist too will recieve a copy.


>
> >> For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
> >> elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.
> >>
> > A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
> > quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
> > noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
> > for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
> > be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.
>
> Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?
No. It is an example of the type of plagerism that exists in your Iran
Iraq book. Quote some here, then use a bunch un-cited. Dr. Ambrose was
badly damaged by this expose; he expired shortly after this incident!


> Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist and
> bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know the
> contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the book
> via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.
You can expect no less from me. This I assure you, Mr. Tom Cooper.

>
> Be so kind to do that - and then post the results here: I'm really curious
> about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you to
> present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.
Await my review.

> > You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
> > that list?
>
> Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
> responsible people at Osprey.
I'll limit this to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer publishing. This is
where
your mistakes lie. But if you insist, I shall forward my report to
Osprey as well.


> I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the relevant
> authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
> committed.... ?
I was not the victim of plagerism here, I am only reporting it. But if
this issue evolves into the legal realm, I can report to you with
absolute confidence that we have the determination and resources
neccessary to fight and prevail.


> > Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
> > alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
> > able to rub off.
>
> Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. I'm not doing the "sinking" nor "attacking" here.
The enemy's vulnerability lies not in the attacker but within himself.


>
> > Before I read that book, you were
> > known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
> > Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
> > others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
> > don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.
>
> And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less issued
> a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
> explain here?
Await my review, and its innevitable dispersion to the relevant
parties.


> >> Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
> >> campaign
> >> of spreading lies about me.
I can say that I now dislike you very much. I was not the victim of
plagerism, but your ideas of me somehow running a 'campaign of
spreading lies' are just
the stuff that defamation lawsuits are made of.

Contact me at
This has become very serious and I wish to discuss it with you in
private.

>From: (Pechs1)

>nimbill-<< Do I know you?
>
>I was on the COMFITAEWWING Staff from 1978-1982. Visited VX-4 twice and every
>other squadron at least 4 times >>
>
><< I was just a lowly enlisted puke. >>
>
>Don't know. I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Nov '89. CO/XO of VF-126
>untilSpet of 1992. No 'lowly enlisted pukes'., IMO, I worked for a salty E-6
>in my firstsquadron..AMS1 Eubanks...and many others in the next 16 years or
>so.P. C. ChisholmCDR, USN(ret.)Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper,
>Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>
>

Guess you were after my time. I retired from the Navy in 1989 after 22+ years
of glorious active duty.

I always went to something new each transfer. I did ASW planes, fighters and
helicopters and worked calibration laboritories in Guam, Sigonella and Puerto
Rico.

I was at COMFITAEWWINGPAC on Staff from 1979-1982 under Admirals Fellows, and
Guilchist. It was a challenging time for me because I had to go out and inspect
maintenance on aircraft I had never worked on before.

My most challenging inspection was to VX-4. Had to inspect things we had never
seen before.

The Navy! It is not a job, it is an adventure.

That is why I asked if I knew you.

I live in New Mexico right next to White Sands Missile Range.
]
It is very comfortable here. I grew up here and just came back.

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> For example, the only day in "early Feb 88" on which F-14s engaged Mirage
> F.1s in two different engagements over the Persian Gulf was 9th of
February.
> That, however, is not a date I'd describe as "early February".

Why not? If you break the month evenly in to"early", "mid" and "late"
(that is, "thirds") the 9th falls in to the first third of the month or
the "early" part.

Mr Cooper-<< - COMOPTEVFOR NORFOLK VA >><BR><BR>
<< - AIRTEVRON FOUR >><BR><BR>
<< - NAVFITWEPSCOL SAN DIEGO CA >><BR><BR>

Like I said, I worked for COMOPTEVFOR at VX-4, and my CO was former CO of
TopGun..and the headers look genuine altho I can't understand why a civilian
has SECRET/NOFORN/ documents.

BUT never heard a sound of the engagments that you say were all so common...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

> wrote in message
om...
>> Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
>> wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one...
>> If
>> you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send
>> you a
>> copy.
>
> I had an opportunity to buy, and I didn't. For the hundreth time, I
> told you I
> don't buy crap for my library. You said you wanted a full critique and
> I offered. You think I've gone through all this trouble just for a
> ****ing handout?

Well, so far, you certainly did. Namely: you haven't offered any kind of
evidence our book being a "plagiarisation" of Gillcrist's work.

Do you have such evidence or not?

>> Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
>> "about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the
>> book,
>> it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.
> You asshole.

"Asshole"? Is that what you call "book review"?

> I have said I have seen your book and read it. Although
> whether it was comprehensible to any human with a minimum of an
> average
> intellect is in serious question. I am a very well read person, and I
> can spot
> **** from a mile away.

I'm sure you did exactly that in this case: saw the book on the shelf in
some store - perhaps indeed from quite a few meters away - and instantly
declared it for what you guess it is.

There is no other explanation for all the nonsence you're babbling about it.

> You don't raise a several thousand volume
> library
> without gaining an insight for quality. I'm going to do a side-by-side
> comparison of that chapter(s) and the uncited material from
> Gillcrist's "Tomcat!"

If you have such an immense "library", then you should actually be in a
perfect condition to offer evidence for any kind of plagiarisations - if
there are any. But, there are none, so all you can do is to insult me.

>> So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?
> I've spent the last week posting evidence, you just refuse to budge.
> You're going to get nailed good, and you know it. Just because I do
> not own your book does not mean I have not read it! There are
> bookstores, where one can examine and read, and public libraries out
> there you idiot!

Where is all that "evidence" you've spent the last week posting?

All you posted is nonsence, supported by even more nonsence. Not that this
would surprise me very much: you can do whatever you like - and there is no
evidence for any kind of a plagiarisation, because there is none.

> I can't wait to prove your Dr. Ambrose-style plagerism. You are in
> very deep ****. I'm going to purchase that book post it myself.
> And you are going to be one very embarrased person. Then I'm going to
> forward
> it to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer. Then they're going to spank you
> ass for being what you are.

Babblabalah... Do you have evidence or not?

> I can see you won't post what I have asked. I will purchase this book
> and do the comparison myself. I need the book to hone the fine
> details, but the outcome will be the same.

Yes, just like in the case of what you said about there being no citation of
Gillcrist's work where it should have been...


>> Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
>> one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
>> there.
>>
>
> Shut the **** up about my review. Amazon accepted it after review and
> it stayed
> there for awhile. When I checked on it, it was gone. Now you say its
> back. I haven't checked but I said I'll take your word for it. Don't
> try to pick nits
> and change the topic Herr Cooper...we're talking about plagerism here.
> That's a very very serious crime.

So, instead of becoming a candidate for heartattack, why don't you simply
sue me?

>> However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
>> there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of
>> course...
>>
>> Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
>> removed from amazon.com?
>
> Can you provide evidence it was never removed? Do you check that page
> every minute for the last 3 months? I think not. So it is you that's
> misinformed
> and possibly lying.

You're accusing me that it was removed, so you have to provide evidence that
it is. Can you provide any sort of evidence that anything was removed from
amazon.com - except for your useless guessing?

> You were the man who said people were after you. It was very amusing
> indeed
> to discover you have a fan club out there.

Which "fan club"?

> You have a talent of making
> enemies, Mr. Tom Cooper. That's not very smart, when you're so
> vulnerable
> on the "Tomcat!"-"Iran-Iraq air war 80-88" plagerism.

And you're extremely talented in babbling nonsence and lying about things
you don't have the slightest clue about.

> My issue here is with the "Iran-Iraq 80-88 air war" book and how you
> plagerized
> "Tomcat!" by Gillcrist. I was very kind and offered you several
> opportunities
> to avoid my now-inevitable side-by-side comparison of both texts. Now
> everyone will see it and you're going to have some explaining to do to
> your Publisher.

I told you above that you should do so. So, what are you waiting for? Why do
you lose your and my time with all this BS here instead of writing to
Schiffer and Mr. Gillcrist?

>> However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single
>> word
>> in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
>> google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.
>>
>> Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is
>> evidence
>> for this as well.
>
> You had better watch who you call a liar. I don't relish being
> defamed, and although I'm a very lenient man, I have my limits.

Well, I don't think you really have any limits: your offense, lies and
threats are getting more intense with every new post....

> You're
> oppening another
> vulnerability here, by attacking my person. It's a fact that you
> plagerized "Tomcat!" and when I complete the side-by-side comparison
> of your Iran Iraq book with Gillcrist's volume, it will be trully
> irrefutable. You're going to be known as a plagerizer pretty soon.
> By calling me a liar, you're on your way to being a defamer as well.

Have you provided any kind of evidence for anything of the BS you posted
here so far? Not? So, what should one call you?

>> I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare
>> between
>> Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
>> internet. That's right.
> You have an unjustifiably high opinion of yourself. Give me a ****ing
> break.

If you don't like to hear my opinion then don't ask me about it.

>> > You only respond in personal taunts.
>>
>> Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you?
>> Where
>> did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I
>> haven't
>> said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
>> your constructions and lies as such?
> You called me a liar. You called me a character. You claim I write my
> review in order to gain a free book off you? And all those other
> posters
> you have insulted over the years...the base of your fan club.

Which "all these other posters"? What would you like to lie about now?

>> >> With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
>> >> about
>> >> it?
>> > Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
>> > fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
>> > that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
>> > superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
>> > insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
>> > piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
>> > library.
>>
>> As said: you haven't read it. Period.
>
> How do you think I discovered your plagerism of "Tomcat!" by Gillcrist
> if I did not read your book?

Don't know. But it's sure you simply never read that book Worst yet, you
obviously don't have a slightest clue about the meaning of a word
"plagierism", otherwise you'd never come to such a stupid idea like stating
that a book of almost 360.000 words is "plagiation" because it cites -
stress: CITES - two or three sentences (total of some 50 words) from another
book.

If you read the book you'd never come to the idea to say that "whole
sections" were "lifted" from anywhere else: you'd know they were not and you
could only make yourself silly by such statements. If you read the book
you'd know that it's silly to say that even "sections" were "lifted",
because nothing was lifted at all.

Even more so, you wouldn't come to the idea to declare "Iran-Iraq War in the
Air, 1980-1988" a plagiation also because it is describing the developments
surrounding the purchase of F-14s by Iran in a completely different
context - and to a much greater detail.

Finally, you wouldn't come to this ridiculous idea because Gillcrist states
something completely different about the combat experience with Tomcats in
Iran than Farzad and me are doing - not only in "Iran-Iraq War in the Air,
1980-1988", but even more so in "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat", which
includes also quite a rebuff of some of Gillcrist's statements by one of the
Iranian officers who was involved in decision-making process.

Had you read the book you would know about this all. But, you're so
obviously clueless about this, that it's clear you never saw more but the
cover. My guess is that you've heard that the book contains some citations
from "Tomcat!" and that you found this suitable for your purpose.

There is at least no other logical explanation that comes to my mind. Of
course, given what nonsence you're posting here, I guess the word "logic"
does not mean much to you...

>> >> Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of
>> >> Gillcrist's
>> >> book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
>> >> Gillcrist's name wrongly).
>> >
>> > Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
>> > damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
>> > word.
>>
>> Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions
>> from
>> Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".
>>
>> Then you said, "portion".
>>
>> Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
>> words).
>>
>> Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
>> from that book?
>>
> I can. I will define 'massive' as "several sentences". And when I do
> my side-by-side comparison, we'll see where you ****ed yourself.
> You're going to be in deep ****.

Who are you to define anything? You don't even know the meaning of the word
"plagiarisation" as defined by internationally accepted rules and laws. So,
how can you define the word "massive" in connection to "plagiarisation"?

What you don't have the slightest clue about is, namely, that even if
"Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" would consist of only some 10.000
words, and 100 of these would've been cited from "Tomcat!" it would still
not be a plagiarisation. Because the source was cited, and nothing like 10%
of the original work was used for creation of the new one.

Consequently, what you're doing here is plain nonsence: you don't really
even have a point. All you are doing is defamation.

>> Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are
>> you
>> unable of understanding what you write?
>>
>> On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
>> works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
>> this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied
>> word
>> for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book
>> draws
>> massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post
>> you
>> stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last
>> message
>> above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress"
>> that
>> we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
>> sentences in question came.
>>
>> Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".
>>
>> Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this
>> whole
>> issue?
>>
> I admit slight, very minor and inconsequential inconsistencies in my
> posts, but the core issue I stand by: The fact that you plagerized is
> irrefutable.

Your whole standpoint is based on such "very minor and inconsequential
inconsistencies". You fabricate a case for a pure wish to bash and babble
about things you don't have a clue about. You ignore the fact that there is
absolutely NO evidence for your accusations, and you ignore the fact that
you are therefore lying.

That's all that is "irefutable" so far - and that's going to remain so even
if you post the whole book "Iran-Iraq War in the Air" here.

>> > Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
>> > I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
>> > serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
>> > how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
>> > will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
>> > corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
>> > what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
>> > other people's work.
>>
>> I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I
>> still
>> have the original manuscript in electronic form.
>>
>> But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have
>> to
>> deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this,
>> or
>> you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if
>> you
>> continue in the same style....
> Await my upcoming side-by-side review. Please share it with your
> lawyer, as I will certainly be sharing it with mine, for review.
> Schiffer and Admiral Gillcrist too will recieve a copy.

Could you finally do this so I can stop wasting my time with your nonsence?

>> >> For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
>> >> elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.
>> >>
>> > A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
>> > quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
>> > noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
>> > for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
>> > be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.
>>
>> Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?
> No. It is an example of the type of plagerism that exists in your Iran
> Iraq book. Quote some here, then use a bunch un-cited. Dr. Ambrose was
> badly damaged by this expose; he expired shortly after this incident!

I'm asking again: Is this "evidence" that "Iran-Iraq War in the Air,
1980-1988" is a plagiarization of "Tomcat!"?

>> Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist
>> and
>> bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know
>> the
>> contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the
>> book
>> via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.
> You can expect no less from me. This I assure you, Mr. Tom Cooper.

Then do it finally.

>> Be so kind to do that - and then post the results here: I'm really
>> curious
>> about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you
>> to
>> present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.
> Await my review.

I'm waiting since four days...

>> > You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
>> > that list?
>>
>> Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
>> responsible people at Osprey.
> I'll limit this to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer publishing. This is
> where
> your mistakes lie. But if you insist, I shall forward my report to
> Osprey as well.

Yes, I insist you do so. I insist you to contact Osprey and declare all the
books I co-authored for them for plagiarizations as well. Then they can sue
you for your lies and I don't need to do that.

>> I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the
>> relevant
>> authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
>> committed.... ?
> I was not the victim of plagerism here, I am only reporting it. But if
> this issue evolves into the legal realm, I can report to you with
> absolute confidence that we have the determination and resources
> neccessary to fight and prevail.

I'm sure you have determination. Most likely you have also resources. The
problem is that you have no evidence - because there is none.

Oh, and because there are clear laws about what can be called a
"plagiarization".

The book we're talking here about is no plagiarization and it can never be
one. Consequently, whenever you say that it is a "plagiarization" you lie.
Do you understand this, and is this clear to you?

>> > Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
>> > alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
>> > able to rub off.
>>
>> Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. I'm
>> not doing the "sinking" nor "attacking" here.
> The enemy's vulnerability lies not in the attacker but within himself.

Talking from your own experience?

>> > Before I read that book, you were
>> > known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
>> > Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
>> > others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
>> > don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.
>>
>> And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less
>> issued
>> a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
>> explain here?
> Await my review, and its innevitable dispersion to the relevant
> parties.

Then stop making yourself wet and post it finally.

>> >> Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
>> >> campaign
>> >> of spreading lies about me.
> I can say that I now dislike you very much. I was not the victim of
> plagerism, but your ideas of me somehow running a 'campaign of
> spreading lies' are just
> the stuff that defamation lawsuits are made of.

I told you already two times that I don't care about your opinion the least.

But, bear in mind that with every additional e-mail in which you post lies
about me, my work, or my co-workers, you are only adding more evidence into
the files of my lawyer. Should your interest be to get yourself sued and
charged for defamation, then you are free to continue in the same manner.

> Contact me at
> This has become very serious and I wish to discuss it with you in
> private.

If you have a matter to discuss with me in private it's on you to contact
me, not on me to contact you. It's you who is lying here; it's you who is
offending me, my work - and my co-workers. I never said anything against
you, have no clue who you are or what is the actual purpose of your lies
about me posted on this NG. It's you who is lying about my work on
amazon.com and it is you who is doing so here; it is also you who is
offending me in every of your posts here.

There can be no evidence that my work is plagiarization because it is no
plagiarization. Consequently, I have nothing to hide.



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

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

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

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

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

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

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Mr Cooper-<< - COMOPTEVFOR NORFOLK VA >><BR><BR>
> << - AIRTEVRON FOUR >><BR><BR>
> << - NAVFITWEPSCOL SAN DIEGO CA >><BR><BR>
>
> Like I said, I worked for COMOPTEVFOR at VX-4, and my CO was former CO of
> TopGun..and the headers look genuine altho I can't understand why a
> civilian
> has SECRET/NOFORN/ documents.

Because I requested their release according to "FOIA" procedure. FOIA stands
for "Freedom of Information Act". This US law grants the right to any person
to request the release of documents from whichever authority in the USA: the
authority in question must answer to any such request (the question is only
how much of the document is going to be released and how much is going to be
blotted out).

For details about FOIA inquiries related to the USN, please see here:
http://foia.navy.mil/

The procedure is very simple, and I must say ONI is usually swift to
respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, I don't even know what "PLAD" means...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woody,
> You're expecting a comprehensive report with historical accuracy. What
> you're reading though is an intelligence report where SPEAR is reporting
> only on the verifiable incidents a short time later without the benefit of
> your historical sources. Make sense?

Explained that way, it does.

> The document isn't inaccurate. It's probably just incomplete.

That doesn't make sence (either they're reporting, or not reporting at all),
but, well, OK... If nothing else it's good to have another opinion - that's
why I asked.

>> Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say
>> that I
>> simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back.
>> Can
>> you say what could be a reason?
>
>I could, but then I'd have to kill you.

Well, that's also an answer.

>> Yep; the USN witnessed the fight. Unclear is only if they actually saw it
>> or
>> tracked it on their radars. AFAIK, they did not notice ejection. Two days
>> later the pilot was found deeper inside the Hormuz Straits by other group
>> of
>> USN vessels.
>
> I can nearly guarantee that nobody "eye-witnessed" it. The altitude and
> ranges that these things occur at--especially in the daytime--make them
> difficult to keep track of visually.

Fair enough: USN warships usually held a position away from the
Iraqi-declared "War Zone" along the Iranian coast.

> <SNIP>
>> From what I've learned so far on this and the previous two days there was
>> a
>> small SAG centered around USS Guam (LPH-9) in the area between Khark
>> Island
>> and Bahrain. What I'm sure of is that crews of these ships have
>> withnessed
>> the Iraqi three-wave strike against Khark, flown in the early morning,
>> morning and afternoon of 18 March 1988, then after the success of the
>> first
>> Iraqi strike specific skipper of one of USN warships declared the Iraqi
>> attack for, "deplorable by nature", and subsequently the whole SAG turned
>> around. When the next Iraqi wave (flown around 09:00hr AM local time)
>> appeared the IRIAF interceptors were airborne and the USN warships
>> recorded - I don't know yet by which means (if I would know this I would
>> not
>> need any documents from ONI) - firings of five AIM-54s.
>
> You're assuming. Based on the SPEAR message, SOME Navy/intel platform
> detected those firings. We don't know how or from what.

That's right - even if I wouldn't say that there is a question "from what"
(there is only one platform capable of firing AIM-54s).

BTW, it's funny the USN credits IRIAF F-14s with a kill against a Mirage on
this day, while the IRIAF isn't crediting itself with anything similar. Also
funny is that about "deplorable by nature" - which wasn't an assumption, but
something I've got from somebody who was on the bridge of one of the ships
in question. Now, one of logical questions here is why would a USN skipper
declare an Iraqi attack for "deplorable by nature", but I guess if you'd
answer that one you'd have to kill me too... ? ;-)

(I know, I know, this is thinn....but, I need some ideas at least so to see
where could I continue to dig).

> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> For example, the only day in "early Feb 88" on which F-14s engaged Mirage
>> F.1s in two different engagements over the Persian Gulf was 9th of
> February.
>> That, however, is not a date I'd describe as "early February".
>
> Why not? If you break the month evenly in to"early", "mid" and "late"
> (that is, "thirds") the 9th falls in to the first third of the month or
> the "early" part.

I wouldn't do that: that's why I asked if people who work or used to work
with USN would.

Different people think different way.

Also, if you can see the situation from my perspective: air combats on 2nd
and 5th February weren't that much different regarding odds or outcome (the
first was fought between 14 Iraqis and a single F-14; the other between six
Mirages and a single F-14). So, from my standpoint, such a statement can
easily cause a confusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom,
I quit. I've wasted enough time on this pointless business which
is getting me, nor you, anywhere.
I still believe what I know, but I will not pursue it any more.
This is not a productive nor happy use of time.

Good luck,
ND

Not that I expected anything else.

And, don't complain about what is or what is not a "productive use of time":
you started wasting your own time by lying and guessing about my work, my
co-workers and me - nobody was forcing you to do that.


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

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

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

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

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

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

On 11/12/04 13:51, in article , "Tom
Cooper" > wrote:

> Woody,
>> You're expecting a comprehensive report with historical accuracy. What
>> you're reading though is an intelligence report where SPEAR is reporting
>> only on the verifiable incidents a short time later without the benefit of
>> your historical sources. Make sense?
>
> Explained that way, it does.
>
>> The document isn't inaccurate. It's probably just incomplete.
>
> That doesn't make sence (either they're reporting, or not reporting at all),
> but, well, OK... If nothing else it's good to have another opinion - that's
> why I asked.
>

I wrote my comment a bit unclearly. My point is (in context) that it's
incomplete from a historical perspective.

>>> Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say
>>> that I
>>> simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back.
>>> Can
>>> you say what could be a reason?
>>
>> I could, but then I'd have to kill you.
>
> Well, that's also an answer.
>

My attempt at humor. Hard to grasp sometimes without the benefit of
personal interaction. It's all about security.

--Woody

Woody,
I've got your points already, don't worry. ;-))

Anyway, in conclusion, it can be said that at least some within the USN
should have got and seen these documents.

It remains unclear, however, why specific people haven't ever got them nor
heard about them. This especially when it comes to people who were in - I'd
say - decisive positions for the stance of the whole USN in regards to the
F-14.

That's at least something to think about. Perhaps some day somebody would
care enough to find out why (I do not think this is our job: Farzad and me
have already enough to do with Iranians and Iraqis).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Cooper-<< Anyway, in conclusion, it can be said that at least some within
the USN
should have got and seen these documents. >><BR><BR>

Okay, my last input about this. Just got the Fall 2004 issue of 'Hook mag.
Little story about the F-14 since it's about outta here. Page 32, "The IRIAF
Tomcats participated in the Ian-Iraq war and scored an undertermined number of
kills while suffering some losses."

Story contributors were the likes of Capt Monroe Smith, RADM Jay Yakeley, CDR
Tom Twomey, CDR Dave Baranek, and some others. These F-14 guys, particularly
Capt Smith, are no slouches when it comes to F-14 history and knowledge
but......
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer