Re: How capable are Saudi F-15s?

[Matt Wiser]

Hobo > wrote:
>
>When the first batch of F-15s were sold to Saudi
>Arabia the Israelis
>made a big issue of their defense needs and
>so the the aircraft were
>technologically compromised due to this pressure.
>The one change I
>remember most clearly is that this first batch
>was supposed to be unable
>to carry bombs. It seems that since then the
>Israelis have let up and we
>have sold the Saudis much more advanced versions
>of the F-15, including
>versions that are capable bombers. However,
>the information I have seen
>on this is spotty. Just how capable are Saudi
>F-15s? I am not referring
>to the pilots, crews or upkeep, just the hardware
>at the time of
>purchase.
>
>TIA
72 birds were sold to Saudi and began delivery in 1995. Two dozen are optimized
for air combat, while 48 were optimized for air-to-mud. Downtuned EW (not
good against Western gear, for example)
However, CFTs, MER racks, GBU-10/12, GBU-15, AGM-65, plus CBUs and Mk-82/84
in quantity. That's for the S version
The Cs delivered in the early 80s had external tanks, and the EW mods, but
otherwise just as capable as the USAF Cs. One known kill against Iran in
1984 and one probable from the same incident (F-4Es were the victim(s)).
Two kills against Iraqi Mirage F-1s in ODS.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser > wrote:
>
>72 birds were sold to Saudi and began delivery in 1995. Two dozen are optimized
>for air combat, while 48 were optimized for air-to-mud. Downtuned EW (not
>good against Western gear, for example)

I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
Dassault...) down the street".

But I sometimes get the opinion that the job of the Saudi armed
forces is something other than being effective in a war.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Gene Storey]

"phil hunt" > wrote
>
> I wonder why SA bought them?

Excellent question. Saudis buy things just to have the best, and their just
sitting on the ramp is OK with them.

I've flown with Egyptians, and Saudis, and the Saudi has no aggressive
tendencies, and must be pushed to the fight. Egyptians on the other hand,
are as aggressive warriors as any western pilots.

The Saudis are staunch anti-communists, and would never purchase a
product from a communist. Today, they would very likely buy Russian,
as most Russian planes are built to NATO specs (AGE, etc).

[Brian]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
wrote:
> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
> Dassault...) down the street".

Because at the time the Saudi's purchased the F-15's, MiG had nothing even
comparable to a "second rate" F-15.

[Bill Silvey]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message

> "phil hunt" > wrote
>>
>> I wonder why SA bought them?
>
> Excellent question. Saudis buy things just to have the best, and
> their just sitting on the ramp is OK with them.
>
> I've flown with Egyptians, and Saudis, and the Saudi has no aggressive
> tendencies, and must be pushed to the fight. Egyptians on the other
> hand, are as aggressive warriors as any western pilots.

I seem to recall a Saudi F15 kill on a Mirage during GW-II ('91);
essentially the US AWACS and other fighters in the area "set up" the kill
for the Saud Eagle, and then held back while he engaged. At least that's
the spin ABC News put on it. I don't mean that negatively, though.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Gene Storey]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote
>
> I seem to recall a Saudi F15 kill on a Mirage during GW-II ('91);
> essentially the US AWACS and other fighters in the area "set up" the kill
> for the Saud Eagle, and then held back while he engaged. At least that's
> the spin ABC News put on it. I don't mean that negatively, though.

That is a true story. The Saudi wet his pants and was screaming like a
woman, but the damn F-1 was painting like a barn on his scope, and
sooner or later all he had to do was pull the trigger.

The case of the U.S.S. Stark, the Saudis never even got off the ground.
Their 5 minute alert birds were told to stand-down and let the Iraqi
return without a fight. The AWACS crew created an international
incident in labeling the Saudis "...a bunch of cowards."

[Bill Silvey]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message

> "Bill Silvey" > wrote
>>
>> I seem to recall a Saudi F15 kill on a Mirage during GW-II ('91);
>> essentially the US AWACS and other fighters in the area "set up" the
>> kill for the Saud Eagle, and then held back while he engaged. At
>> least that's the spin ABC News put on it. I don't mean that
>> negatively, though.
>
> That is a true story. The Saudi wet his pants and was screaming like
> a woman, but the damn F-1 was painting like a barn on his scope, and
> sooner or later all he had to do was pull the trigger.

I recall that. The driver was *yelling* everything. And twice.

Pilot:"I CAN SEE HIM. I CAN SEE HIM."
Awacs: "You're weapons free."
Pilot:"TARGET LOCKED! TARGET LOCKED! FIRING! FIRING!" (I don't recall if
he called "fox" on the missile shoot or not.)

....or something to that effect.

> The case of the U.S.S. Stark, the Saudis never even got off the
> ground. Their 5 minute alert birds were told to stand-down and let
> the Iraqi return without a fight. The AWACS crew created an
> international incident in labeling the Saudis "...a bunch of cowards."

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Saudi Arabia *is not*
an ally.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:51:40 GMT, Gene Storey > wrote:
>"phil hunt" > wrote
>>
>> I wonder why SA bought them?
>
>Excellent question. Saudis buy things just to have the best,

All the more reason why they wouldn't accept an inferiour version.

>The Saudis are staunch anti-communists, and would never purchase a
>product from a communist. Today, they would very likely buy Russian,
>as most Russian planes are built to NATO specs (AGE, etc).

Russians weren't (by-and-large) communists in 1995. Certainly the
govmt wasn't.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:57:05 -0400, Brian > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
>wrote:
>> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
>> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
>> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
>> Dassault...) down the street".
>
>Because at the time the Saudi's purchased the F-15's, MiG had nothing even
>comparable to a "second rate" F-15.

MiG aren't the only people making aircraft. Saudi Arabia could have
bought a Su-27 derivative such as the Su-30. They could have bought
the Mirage 2000. If they wanted a bomber, they already operate the
Tornado so could have bought more of them. If they were willing to
wait a while, they could have ordered the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon.
(For the last 2, Saudi money may well have accelerated development,
since defence cutbacks in European countries delayed it).

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Daryl Hunt]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:57:05 -0400, Brian
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
> >wrote:
> >> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
> >> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
> >> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
> >> Dassault...) down the street".
> >
> >Because at the time the Saudi's purchased the F-15's, MiG had nothing
even
> >comparable to a "second rate" F-15.
>
> MiG aren't the only people making aircraft. Saudi Arabia could have
> bought a Su-27 derivative such as the Su-30.

It's not the same as the non export Su-27. Much like our Export F-15 has
some changes as well for export

They could have bought
> the Mirage 2000.

Both the Su-27 and the F-15 would have it for lunch even in the export
version.


If they wanted a bomber, they already operate the
> Tornado so could have bought more of them.

Great little Tactical Bomber but not a frontline fighter. Better to
purchase the export F-16 from the US and save a bundle.


If they were willing to
> wait a while, they could have ordered the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon.
> (For the last 2, Saudi money may well have accelerated development,
> since defence cutbacks in European countries delayed it).

One reason the Saudis may have chosen US is they could have taken Military
Hardware for Oil.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:01:59 -0600, Daryl Hunt > wrote:
>
>>
>> MiG aren't the only people making aircraft. Saudi Arabia could have
>> bought a Su-27 derivative such as the Su-30.
>
>It's not the same as the non export Su-27.

If anything, it's better -- the Russians can't afford to buy the
best planes.

>> They could have bought the Mirage 2000.
>
>Both the Su-27 and the F-15 would have it for lunch even in the export
>version.

That's probably true.

>> If they wanted a bomber, they already operate the
>> Tornado so could have bought more of them.
>
>Great little Tactical Bomber but not a frontline fighter.

Indeed; the OP stated that SA bought many to be bombers.

>If they were willing to
>> wait a while, they could have ordered the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon.
>> (For the last 2, Saudi money may well have accelerated development,
>> since defence cutbacks in European countries delayed it).
>
>One reason the Saudis may have chosen US is they could have taken Military
>Hardware for Oil.

And other people wouldn't?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:57:05 -0400, Brian
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
> wrote:
> > >> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
> > >> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
> > >> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
> > >> Dassault...) down the street".
> > >
> > >Because at the time the Saudi's purchased the F-15's, MiG had nothing
> even
> > >comparable to a "second rate" F-15.
> >
> > MiG aren't the only people making aircraft. Saudi Arabia could have
> > bought a Su-27 derivative such as the Su-30.

Sorry, but the same reasoning still applies--the F-15 was offered to
the world well before the Su-27 was. Service entry for the F-15 was
1976; the Flanker B (the first one that could rival (arguably) the
F-15) did not enter Soviet service until 1986.

>
> It's not the same as the non export Su-27. Much like our Export F-15 has
> some changes as well for export
>
> They could have bought
> > the Mirage 2000.

Again, look at the timing--IOC in French service in 84, eight years
after the Eagle had entered operational US service with 1st TFW. ISTR
that the Saudi F-15's were entering service sometime around when the
French themselves were placing the 2000 into service?

>
> Both the Su-27 and the F-15 would have it for lunch even in the export
> version.

Yep.
>
>
> If they wanted a bomber, they already operate the
> > Tornado so could have bought more of them.
>
> Great little Tactical Bomber but not a frontline fighter. Better to
> purchase the export F-16 from the US and save a bundle.
>
>
> If they were willing to
> > wait a while, they could have ordered the Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon.
> > (For the last 2, Saudi money may well have accelerated development,
> > since defence cutbacks in European countries delayed it).
>
> One reason the Saudis may have chosen US is they could have taken Military
> Hardware for Oil.

Not to mention that the idea of waiting another fifteen to twenty
years was NOT a realistic option for the Saudis in the early/mid
eighties.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On 13 Sep 2003 06:56:50 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
>> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:57:05 -0400, Brian
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
>> wrote:
>> > >> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
>> > >> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
>> > >> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
>> > >> Dassault...) down the street".
>> > >
>> > >Because at the time the Saudi's purchased the F-15's, MiG had nothing
>> even
>> > >comparable to a "second rate" F-15.
>> >
>> > MiG aren't the only people making aircraft. Saudi Arabia could have
>> > bought a Su-27 derivative such as the Su-30.
>
>Sorry, but the same reasoning still applies--the F-15 was offered to
>the world well before the Su-27 was. Service entry for the F-15 was
>1976; the Flanker B (the first one that could rival (arguably) the
>F-15) did not enter Soviet service until 1986.

And we are talking about a Saudi arms purchase in 1995, *long
after* it entered service.

>Again, look at the timing--IOC in French service in 84, eight years
>after the Eagle had entered operational US service with 1st TFW. ISTR
>that the Saudi F-15's were entering service sometime around when the
>French themselves were placing the 2000 into service?

You're thinking of the first block of F-15s the Saudis bought, in
the 1980s. I was talking of the second batch, in the 1990s.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[EB Jet]

Didn't he shoot down two F-1's in the same engagement?

[Ragnar]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
wrote:
> >
> >72 birds were sold to Saudi and began delivery in 1995. Two dozen are
optimized
> >for air combat, while 48 were optimized for air-to-mud. Downtuned EW (not
> >good against Western gear, for example)
>
> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
> Dassault...) down the street".

You assume the Saudis "knew" the birds were downrated. Do you know that for
sure?

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 13 Sep 2003 06:56:50 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message >...
> >> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:57:05 -0400, Brian
> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> >> > . ..
> >> > >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
> wrote:
> >> > >> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
> >> > >> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
> >> > >> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
> >> > >> Dassault...) down the street".
> >> > >
> >> > >Because at the time the Saudi's purchased the F-15's, MiG had nothing
> even
> >> > >comparable to a "second rate" F-15.
> >> >
> >> > MiG aren't the only people making aircraft. Saudi Arabia could have
> >> > bought a Su-27 derivative such as the Su-30.
> >
> >Sorry, but the same reasoning still applies--the F-15 was offered to
> >the world well before the Su-27 was. Service entry for the F-15 was
> >1976; the Flanker B (the first one that could rival (arguably) the
> >F-15) did not enter Soviet service until 1986.
>
> And we are talking about a Saudi arms purchase in 1995, *long
> after* it entered service.

Then I believe you are still a bit off, as the latter F-15 purchase
was for the two-seat multi-role version IIRC. The Su-27/30 family is
now moving into the truly multi-role arena, but in 95 that would have
been a stretch, as the emphasis remained on air-to-air for the Su's
through the eighties and into the early 90's.

>
> >Again, look at the timing--IOC in French service in 84, eight years
> >after the Eagle had entered operational US service with 1st TFW. ISTR
> >that the Saudi F-15's were entering service sometime around when the
> >French themselves were placing the 2000 into service?
>
> You're thinking of the first block of F-15s the Saudis bought, in
> the 1980s. I was talking of the second batch, in the 1990s.

In which case, again, you need to look at the stike capability in
addition to air-to-air--the 2000 is not in the same league as the F-15
in either role.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:45:55 GMT, Ragnar > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:44:43 GMT, Matt Wiser >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >72 birds were sold to Saudi and began delivery in 1995. Two dozen are
>optimized
>> >for air combat, while 48 were optimized for air-to-mud. Downtuned EW (not
>> >good against Western gear, for example)
>>
>> I wonder why SA bought them? Certainly, if I was trying to buy
>> something and the shop would only sell me second-rate gear, I would
>> say "fine, I'll take my custom to Mr Sukhoi (or Mr Mikoyan or Mr
>> Dassault...) down the street".
>
>You assume the Saudis "knew" the birds were downrated. Do you know that for
>sure?

Not for sure, but my recollection was that there was a big public
debate in the US govmt about whether to sell them, and selling
downgraded ones was the compromise that came out of the debate. The
Saudis must have been aware that the debate was going on.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Dionysios Pilarinos]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
>...
> > Both the Su-27 and the F-15 would have it for lunch even in the export
> > version.
>
> Yep.

Hey... not so fast! Let's for the moment forget about the pilot (skills) and
what he brings to the cockpit.

The Mirage 2000-5 (and let's limit ourselves to the period of the F-15S
acquisition) offered enough capabilities to keep it from being considered
"lunch" for either the Su-27 or F-15S (or other competitors).

From a radar/avionics perspective, I can't see how it is at a disadvantage.
The RDY is certainly superior to the "crippled" APG-70 that the Saudi's use
(and one can argue about even the "non-crippled" version). Cockpit
automation and sensor fusion put the M2000 at the top of any 3rd generation
a/c competition.

Weapon systems... the Mirage 2000 can carry a greater variety of precision
A-G targeting and weapons systems (that's if you care about true
mutli-role), and ones that foreign states (like SA) can acquire. As for A-A,
don't discount the MICA because of it's reported limited range (versus the
AMRAAM or the AA-12); depending on what numbers you're looking at, the
difference might be rather small. And since we're on the BVR topic, what's
the RCS of the F-15 and Su-27 versus the M2000?

The Mirage 2000 (much like the F-16) offers somethings the F-15 can't (at
least that's what numerous international competitions say): higher
availability, larger numbers, lower operational costs, and lower acquisition
costs. Taking a look at 3 close neighbors to SA (Greece, Egypt, and UAE)
indicate that the Mirage 2000 might offer a "bit" of a challenge to an F-15
or Su-27. Mind you, 2 of the 3 Mirage 2000E operators mentioned (Greece and
UAE) have placed orders for the -5mk2 and -9 versions (even though both also
operate advanced versions of the F-16).

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dionysios Pilarinos" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Both the Su-27 and the F-15 would have it for lunch even in the export
> > > version.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Hey... not so fast! Let's for the moment forget about the pilot (skills) and
> what he brings to the cockpit.

I believe the discussion was about the aircraft, not pilot quality.

Brooks

>
> The Mirage 2000-5 (and let's limit ourselves to the period of the F-15S
> acquisition) offered enough capabilities to keep it from being considered
> "lunch" for either the Su-27 or F-15S (or other competitors).
>
> From a radar/avionics perspective, I can't see how it is at a disadvantage.
> The RDY is certainly superior to the "crippled" APG-70 that the Saudi's use
> (and one can argue about even the "non-crippled" version). Cockpit
> automation and sensor fusion put the M2000 at the top of any 3rd generation
> a/c competition.
>
> Weapon systems... the Mirage 2000 can carry a greater variety of precision
> A-G targeting and weapons systems (that's if you care about true
> mutli-role), and ones that foreign states (like SA) can acquire. As for A-A,
> don't discount the MICA because of it's reported limited range (versus the
> AMRAAM or the AA-12); depending on what numbers you're looking at, the
> difference might be rather small. And since we're on the BVR topic, what's
> the RCS of the F-15 and Su-27 versus the M2000?
>
> The Mirage 2000 (much like the F-16) offers somethings the F-15 can't (at
> least that's what numerous international competitions say): higher
> availability, larger numbers, lower operational costs, and lower acquisition
> costs. Taking a look at 3 close neighbors to SA (Greece, Egypt, and UAE)
> indicate that the Mirage 2000 might offer a "bit" of a challenge to an F-15
> or Su-27. Mind you, 2 of the 3 Mirage 2000E operators mentioned (Greece and
> UAE) have placed orders for the -5mk2 and -9 versions (even though both also
> operate advanced versions of the F-16).

[Steve Davies]

Hi Matt,

According to my sources the RSAF has never kept 24 S-model jets optimised
for air-to-air - that's one of those urban rumours that seems to go on
forever. :-)

It was a long while before the Cat V tangential carriage CFTs were delivered
to the RSAF (Congress did not approve them for a number of years), so the
S-model was limited to operating with MERs. The Saudis were supplied CFTs
from the start, but these were devoid of any BRU-46 and BRU-47 air-to-ground
hardpoints. They did feature LAU-106 air-to-air attachments, however.

In avionics terms, the F-15S lacks some key LANTIRN modes and has downtuned
air-to-air radar and air-to-ground modes (with some 'special modes' deleted
altogether). Additional capabilities - such as AAQ-14 automatic hand-off to
Maverick - have also been deleted in addition to your mention of downgraded
ICMS capabilities.

For anyone who's interested, there's a complete overview of the F-15S and
RSAF operators in my new Strike Eagle book, out 22 September and available
from Amazon and all good book stores: "F-15E Strike Eagle; All Weather
Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

--
Steve Davies
"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776
"F-15E Strike Eagle; All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784
www.f-15e.net



"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3f61ea24$1@bg2....
>
> Hobo > wrote:
> >
> >TIA
> 72 birds were sold to Saudi and began delivery in 1995. Two dozen are
optimized
> for air combat, while 48 were optimized for air-to-mud. Downtuned EW (not
> good against Western gear, for example)
> However, CFTs, MER racks, GBU-10/12, GBU-15, AGM-65, plus CBUs and
Mk-82/84
> in quantity.

[Tom Cooper]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
>
> > "Bill Silvey" > wrote
>
> > The case of the U.S.S. Stark, the Saudis never even got off the
> > ground. Their 5 minute alert birds were told to stand-down and let
> > the Iraqi return without a fight. The AWACS crew created an
> > international incident in labeling the Saudis "...a bunch of cowards."
>
> If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Saudi Arabia *is
not*
> an ally.

Not that I would deny that Saudi Arabia is not a US ally (they are foremost
the ally of their corrupt royals, feeling to sit above all the others, and
only then anything else). But, hell, they had an agreement with the Iraqis,
according to which the IrAF was free to use parts of their airspace - or
even to land aircraft in emergency at Saudi airfields. According to their
own ROEs, there was no way in hell they could stop that Mirage F.1EQ-5,
except it would still have been armed while trying to land at one of their
air bases. Anything else would be against the agreement between Ryadh and
Baghdad.

In the case of the downing of an Iranian F-4E (and damaging of the other),
in 1984, the situation was different because there were no such agreements
with Tehran. Quite on the contrary, the Iranians were about to attack a ship
inside the Saudi territorial waters. The situation was also different
because one of the involved F-15s was a D, with a US instructor in the rear
seat. The US officers aboard the US E-3A patrolling nearby ordered the two
pilots - which were on an in-flight refueling training sortie (with USAF
KC-10As) - to intercept the Phantoms, but the pilots were reluctant, as
neither was fully qualified on the F-15s. Then the US officers on the AWACS
and the US instructor in the rear cockpit of the F-15D pushed them to go -
and off they went.

So, the obvious lesson from these situations is that you can't expect the
others to always do what is in US interest: the US is also not doing things
that are not in US interest.

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