Final Word on Syrian/Iranian A/C [Archive]

View Full Version : Final Word on Syrian/Iranian A/C

David Joston

October 12th 03, 05:17 PM

Would you all stop bickering about the Syrian Flankers and Iranian
Frogfoots!

Picking up a copy of the 2002 edition of Jane's aircraft recognition
guide it clearly states that Iran DOES operate the Su-25 and Syria
DOES NOT operate any Su-27 Flankers.

Since Jane's is the world's authority on aircraft that should settle
the matter.

I also have the book Rob got his information from. It is a good book
for the price $20, but it is meant only as guide, not an authoritative
source of material. Every other volume comes out 2 years from the
previous one making the information contained at the time of printing
obsolete. The publication also includes aircraft deals that may or may
not be filled or just plain cancelled.

So, buy the guide for updated information on individual aircraft like
the MiG 1.44, Su-47, Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale, etc... and leave the
inventory facts to Jane's.

That's my suggestion.

Also, I was disturbed by Tom Cooper's comments about not trusting
aviation reference books since he, himself, is the co-author of two on
Iranian aircraft. A bit hypocritical Tom? You should have just said to
properly make the distinction between aircraft reference books that
are to be used as guides and serious authoritative books like Jane's
to settle disputes.

We all have lots of aviation books but I would dare say 99% of them
are outdated or wrong. Such is the foolishness of trying to print
anything realted to aviation that is historically accurate,
technically flawless, or up to date.

Just my opinion,
BGX

ddd

October 12th 03, 05:50 PM

According to Military Balance 2002-2003 four Su-27s were delivered
to Syria in 2000.

David Joston wrote:

> Would you all stop bickering about the Syrian Flankers and Iranian
> Frogfoots!
>
> Picking up a copy of the 2002 edition of Jane's aircraft recognition
> guide it clearly states that Iran DOES operate the Su-25 and Syria
> DOES NOT operate any Su-27 Flankers.
>
> Since Jane's is the world's authority on aircraft that should settle
> the matter.
>
> I also have the book Rob got his information from. It is a good book
> for the price $20, but it is meant only as guide, not an authoritative
> source of material. Every other volume comes out 2 years from the
> previous one making the information contained at the time of printing
> obsolete. The publication also includes aircraft deals that may or may
> not be filled or just plain cancelled.
>
> So, buy the guide for updated information on individual aircraft like
> the MiG 1.44, Su-47, Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale, etc... and leave the
> inventory facts to Jane's.
>
> That's my suggestion.
>
> Also, I was disturbed by Tom Cooper's comments about not trusting
> aviation reference books since he, himself, is the co-author of two on
> Iranian aircraft. A bit hypocritical Tom? You should have just said to
> properly make the distinction between aircraft reference books that
> are to be used as guides and serious authoritative books like Jane's
> to settle disputes.
>
> We all have lots of aviation books but I would dare say 99% of them
> are outdated or wrong. Such is the foolishness of trying to print
> anything realted to aviation that is historically accurate,
> technically flawless, or up to date.
>
> Just my opinion,
> BGX

Tom Cooper

October 13th 03, 08:34 AM

David,

I do not consider any of Jane's publications as authoritative on the topic
of Iran: they are full of terrible mistakes, and most of their (and most of
those published elsewhere) articles and publications to the topic of Iran -
actually all of them - are completely wrong.

The fact that they wrote in 2001 that the Su-25 is in service is already a
very good confirmation for this: the plane is in service only since earlier
this year.

That they say the Su-27s is not operated by Syria was probably a mistake of
a sort.

> Also, I was disturbed by Tom Cooper's comments about not trusting
> aviation reference books since he, himself, is the co-author of two on
> Iranian aircraft. A bit hypocritical Tom? You should have just said to
> properly make the distinction between aircraft reference books that
> are to be used as guides and serious authoritative books like Jane's
> to settle disputes.

Well, that's actually exactly what I said (minus that about Jane's: as said
above, they're never correct when it comes to Iran). I guess that you should
have read the post in question more carefully, instead just the line that
informed you, "...that Tom Cooper is .now stating that they are all wrong
about Iran and Syria..."

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

robert arndt

October 13th 03, 05:09 PM

(David Joston) wrote in message >...
> Would you all stop bickering about the Syrian Flankers and Iranian
> Frogfoots!
>
> Picking up a copy of the 2002 edition of Jane's aircraft recognition
> guide it clearly states that Iran DOES operate the Su-25 and Syria
> DOES NOT operate any Su-27 Flankers.
>
> Since Jane's is the world's authority on aircraft that should settle
> the matter.

Are you kidding? Janes isn't infallible and that Aircraft Recognition
Guide is exactly what you claimed my reference was- a guide!!! It
doesn't even feature the MiG 1.42/MFI 1.44, Su-47 Firkin, KAI AT-50,
etc... So much for being up to date!
>
> I also have the book Rob got his information from. It is a good book
> for the price $20, but it is meant only as guide, not an authoritative
> source of material. Every other volume comes out 2 years from the
> previous one making the information contained at the time of printing
> obsolete. The publication also includes aircraft deals that may or may
> not be filled or just plain cancelled.

And you failed to mention that all aircraft included in deals are
marked with an asterik in the inventory section. In the individual
aircraft columns any significant purchases or licensed production is
noted.
>
> So, buy the guide for updated information on individual aircraft like
> the MiG 1.44, Su-47, Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale, etc... and leave the
> inventory facts to Jane's.
>
> That's my suggestion.

Suggestion noted and rejected. There are just too many references to
Syria picking up some Su-27s from Russia in 2000 and likewise no
mention of operational Su-25s for Iran, although in 2003 there are
news sources that report Iran was aquiring additional Su-25 airframes.
>
> Also, I was disturbed by Tom Cooper's comments about not trusting
> aviation reference books since he, himself, is the co-author of two on
> Iranian aircraft. A bit hypocritical Tom? You should have just said to
> properly make the distinction between aircraft reference books that
> are to be used as guides and serious authoritative books like Jane's
> to settle disputes.

Tom Cooper makes all sorts of annoying comments and thinks he's an
authority on all things pertaining to the Iranian AF. That's why he
can't provide information of the number of Su-25s supposedly operated
by Iran, their units, tailnumbers, bases, or any photographic proof of
any flying.
>
> We all have lots of aviation books but I would dare say 99% of them
> are outdated or wrong. Such is the foolishness of trying to print
> anything realted to aviation that is historically accurate,
> technically flawless, or up to date.

I'll agree with you on this point. Anyone who keeps aviation reference
material is forced to update constantly. I merely tried to provide
basic information on the strengths of both the Syrian and Iranian AF
as compared to the Israeli AF. Even if there are some discrepancies
the picture remains the same with Israel far outclassing the other two
AFs in terms of aircraft, quality, units, and training.

Rob
>
> Just my opinion,
> BGX

David Joston

October 13th 03, 06:04 PM

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> David,
>
> I do not consider any of Jane's publications as authoritative on the topic
> of Iran: they are full of terrible mistakes, and most of their (and most of
> those published elsewhere) articles and publications to the topic of Iran -
> actually all of them - are completely wrong.
>
> > 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

Well, I don't see a "Tom Cooper's All the World's Aircraft 2003/2004"
edition anywhere. I'd like to know what your credentials are to make
such assertations?

A co-author of two books on Iranian a/c doesn't mean **** compared to
Jane's excellent reputation as the world's authority on aircraft.

Until you can prove otherwise, your comments make you sound like the
Al Gore of RAM.

BGX

phil hunt

October 13th 03, 07:14 PM

On 13 Oct 2003 10:04:48 -0700, David Joston > wrote:
>
>A co-author of two books on Iranian a/c doesn't mean **** compared to
>Jane's excellent reputation as the world's authority on aircraft.

Do Jane's have an excellent reputation? My understanding is they
used to, but do they still?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

Tarver Engineering

October 13th 03, 07:40 PM

Tarver Engineering

October 13th 03, 08:48 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On 13 Oct 2003 10:04:48 -0700, David Joston >
wrote:
> >
> >A co-author of two books on Iranian a/c doesn't mean **** compared to
> >Jane's excellent reputation as the world's authority on aircraft.
>
> Do Jane's have an excellent reputation? My understanding is they
> used to, but do they still?

I say Janes not knowing what EMP is puts them asleeep at the wheel for 40
years.

Paul J. Adam

October 13th 03, 08:55 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On 13 Oct 2003 10:04:48 -0700, David Joston > wrote:
>>
>>A co-author of two books on Iranian a/c doesn't mean **** compared to
>>Jane's excellent reputation as the world's authority on aircraft.
>
>Do Jane's have an excellent reputation? My understanding is they
>used to, but do they still?

They're okay but not to be taken as Gospel.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Tom Cooper

October 13th 03, 09:18 PM

"David Joston" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
>...
> > David,
> >
> > I do not consider any of Jane's publications as authoritative on the
topic
> > of Iran: they are full of terrible mistakes, and most of their (and most
of
> > those published elsewhere) articles and publications to the topic of
Iran -
> > actually all of them - are completely wrong.
> >
> > > 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
>
> Well, I don't see a "Tom Cooper's All the World's Aircraft 2003/2004"
> edition anywhere. I'd like to know what your credentials are to make
> such assertations?

Isn't your post and this question actually self-explaining?

> A co-author of two books on Iranian a/c doesn't mean **** compared to
> Jane's excellent reputation as the world's authority on aircraft.

OK. Then there were Su-25s in Iranian service already in 2001. Can you,
based on your holly Jane's, mention even one serial or tell us which unit
operates them and where are they stationed?

Oh, and, BTW, and what are your credentials?

> Until you can prove otherwise, your comments make you sound like the
> Al Gore of RAM.

Well, you do sound like Woody Allen already now.

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

Tom Cooper

October 16th 03, 12:31 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> Suggestion noted and rejected. There are just too many references to
> Syria picking up some Su-27s from Russia in 2000 and likewise no
> mention of operational Su-25s for Iran, although in 2003 there are
> news sources that report Iran was aquiring additional Su-25 airframes.

Robert,
the editors of such publications like Jane's World Air Forces do not even
have a direct contact to their own contributors in situ, so to have the
possibility to check if their info is entirely up to date. Jane's World Air
Forces Issue 15, just for example, cites the Angolan Air Force having
nothing less but five squadrons of MiG-21 "right now", which was not the
case even at the best times the FAPA-DAA saw, so in 1987 (not to talk about
the fact that even such a prominent editor like Paul Jackson apparently has
no infos about the Sudanese AF at all).

But you seem to expect that all the other similar publications - which to a
considerable degree actually copy-paste their infos from Jane's, or at least
cross-check their informations with different Jane's publications - "to know
better" if there are Su-27s in Syria or not?

Come on, even the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies cites "Su-27 not
confirmed" in their newest assessments on the topic of Middle Eastern
military ballance, but you're going to explain us that you are "convinced"
that there are Su-27s with the SyAAF on the basis of out-of-date reference
publications, none of which had first-hand sources? Just because there are
"so many of them"? Shouldn't at least the Israelis know it a little bit
better than you, or Jane's or all the other of your tremendously
authoritative sources? Haven't you read the example with "so many of them"
sources citing a Soviet Mi-24 shot down an Iranian F-4 further above?

> > Also, I was disturbed by Tom Cooper's comments about not trusting
> > aviation reference books since he, himself, is the co-author of two on
> > Iranian aircraft. A bit hypocritical Tom? You should have just said to
> > properly make the distinction between aircraft reference books that
> > are to be used as guides and serious authoritative books like Jane's
> > to settle disputes.
>
> Tom Cooper makes all sorts of annoying comments and thinks he's an
> authority on all things pertaining to the Iranian AF. That's why he
> can't provide information of the number of Su-25s supposedly operated
> by Iran, their units, tailnumbers, bases, or any photographic proof of
> any flying.

If my remarks on the topic of military and politics in the Middle East are
annoying for you - that better. Besides, I appreciate you being so kind to
rise so much dust about me: this is good for my ego, you know.

But, to say I can't provide any information on the number of Su-25s in Iran
is a way off: I said there are seven of them, and they are in service with
the IRGCAF. I could also explain you about the unit that operates them (not
"units") their serials, bases etc., no problem, but you wouldn't understand
this as I'm sure you don't know anything about the OrBat of the Iranian air
arms, so this would mean nothing to you. Besides, it costs quite some money
to run this kind of research, and you wouldn't pay anything for this in
exchange, so I'm not interested.

Thus, here is my proposal, which I think is really fair and ballanced for
both of us: you continue babbling about how wrong and annoying I am at every
opportunity on the r.a.m. and everywhere else (thanks in advance!), and I'll
continue researching and publishing - together with my co-workers, of
course.

Then, in exactly one year from now, we'll meet here again, make a summary of
what was published where in the meantime, and see who was right and who
wrong,

OK?

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

robert arndt

October 18th 03, 05:42 AM

According to the Spring 2003 Edition of "Internation Air Power Review"
in an article concerning the Su-27/30 this is what is said about the
Syrian Flankers:

1) Syria was delivered 4 in April 2002
2) Two months later the number delivered was 8
3) Ultimately, Syria aquired 14
4) The Su-27s (which are SKs) are operated from the air bases of Al
Qusayr and Minahk.

Sounds good enough for me. If you take into account the Russian
deliveries of T-80 MBTs from 2000 on you will see that at least the
first delivery of Flankers was included in that $2 billion package
Syria paid for up front. So as far as I am concerned, Tom Cooper is in
denial.

Rob

robert arndt

October 18th 03, 05:45 AM

A typo on my last post, sorry.

1) SHOULD READ: 4 delivered by April 2000

Rob

Tom Cooper

October 18th 03, 09:07 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

OK Robert,
I told you I have a feeling you talk about something you don't have a clue
about, and so here is - once again - the whole story, so that even children
and those in the rearest rows can understand it.

AFM, June 2000 issue, p.15 (this one was NOT mine):

"Syria gets Flankers
It has been reported by sources within Russia that the first shipment of
Sukhoi Su-27 Flankers to Syria was due to be delivered to Damascus by the
end of April (2000) Although Syria has been planning to procure new military
equipment from Russia (Syria plans Russian Re-equipment, April 1999, p.11),
no official confirmation of any contracts has so far emerged. However, the
aircraft were apparently being prepared for shipment from the Gagarin
Aviation Production Association factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur during April.
The Consequences of such a purchase could impact on the negotiations taking
place between Israel and Syria concerning the settlement of the dispute over
the Golan Heights. It will certainly strengthen Israeli demands for
additional US military assistance, particularly the procurement of new and
more advanced weapons systems."

So, that article mentioned the PREPARATIONS of Su-27s to be sent to Syria.

And then there came the following report of mine from AFM _July 2000_, the
first to mention Su-27s in Syria:

"Syria is believed to have received four Su-27 Flankers during May, with
another four due imminently (Syria Gets Flankers, June, p.15). The Flankers
have been delivered to the same squadron, however, at two locations - Minakh
AB (home of the Air Force Academy) and the military side of Damascus
International Airport, with two aircraft stationed at each location.

The thinking behind the division is that if one of the airfields is attacked
then aircraft from the other would survive. However, given the proximity of
Minakh to the Turkish border and Damascus to Israel (both of which are
linked by far-reaching defence agreements) it would seem that Syria is
guarding against attacks from both countries. Three years ago Turkey came
close to war with Syria due to their PKK support."

Can you - or anybody else here - find any EARLIER report about SIGHTING or
DELIVERIES of Flankers IN Syria - not their preparations for being sent
there or anything else?
(Oh, and would you at least once not be so ignorant as usually and answer
this question of mine?)

And, as you obviously haven't read my post in the other thread, although I
have suggested you to do so, here it once again, the full explanation and
the _end of the story_, my report published in AFM volume July 2003, p.18

"No Flankers in Syria
Contrary to press reports in 2000, it is now known that the Syrian Arab Air
Force (SyAAF) is not operating Su-27s (amending "Four Flankers in Syria,
July 2000, p.16). However, this does not mean that the Su-27 has never been
seen in Syria, as reported at the time. In 1999 and 2000, Moscow started
intensive efforts to sell Su-27s to Damascus and there are indications that
the Russians are still trying to do so. On no fewer than four occasions,
Su-27s have been flown to Syria in order to be demonstrated to the SyAAF
pilots and engineering officers, in order to familiarise them with the
aircraft. One such event took place in autumn 1999, and another in April
2000, when two Su-27s drawn from Russian Air Force units were deployed to
the SyAAF Academy at Minakh AB, and further two going directly to Damascus.
On both occasions, the aircraft also carried "full" SyAAF markings, and a
group of Syrian pilots was permitted to fly them, putting the aircraft
through a series of intensive and prolonged tests. Quite why the Syrians did
not in the end purchase the Su-27s remains unclear - one reason was almost
certainly the lack of funding on the Syrian side. However, Syrian sources
stress that this was not exactly the case, saying they were refusing Russian
requests to pay debts for equipment supplied during the 1980s, variously
reported to be between $2 and $5 billion.
The Syrians were unwilling to pay for equipment which in their opinion was
neither "top of the range" nor effective in combat against the Israeli. It
seems that Moscow somehow accepted this decision and orders for certain
other weapons, including AT-14 ATGMs, were accepted, with deliveries
commencing in 2002. The Su-27 deal was not, however, to be finalised.
Another problem seems to have been the fact that Rosobornexport was offering
Syria only eight Su-27s and four Su-27UBs (at an unknown price) in April
2001; one month later another offer was made, for then Su-27S and two
Su-27UBs. The Syrians, however, wanted many more Flankers. Citing a study
prepared for the SyAAF, Damascus stressed that 42 Flankers would be the
absolute minimum to be of any use to the Syrian Air Force. It remains
unknown why the Russians refused to supply this many. When negotiations with
Sukhoi fell through, the SyAAF went back to RSK MiG and ordered 22 MiG-29s
(all second-hand/used airframes, but upgraded to an as-yet-unknown
standard), together with 300 "upgraded air-to-air missiles" of unspecified
type. At least 16 of these Fulcrums were delivered to Syria in 2001 and
2002, and are believed* to be operational with one of the three units flying
the type. Interestingly, this deal was never announced by RSK MiG or made
public."

*Meanwhile it is _known_ that they are operational.

The 826th FS still flies MiG-21bis, from al-Quasyr AB.

The Israelis have closely monitored the arrival of different pieces of
equipment in Syria during the last two years, especially because some of the
stuff that was arriving there was forwarded to Iraq. This caused a whole
series of severe incidents, none of which was reported in the press (in part
becaue the editor of the AFM explained that, "there's not enough fighting"
in them), you can find the report about these events here:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_278.shtml

Note also that in the report published in July 2003 AFM I mentioned also the
delivery of AT-14s to Syria. This happened in autumn last year (2002). The
Syrians forwarded 12 launchers and at least 100 rounds to the Iraqis, and
the Iraqis used these during the war with the USA, in March and April this
year (together with some TOWs they captured in Kuwait in 1990, but also got
via Syria in the last two years: the US Army has an official investigation
running to the topic).

And so, Rob, you can now expect that within the next two years every of your
"authoritative" sources is going to take Su-27s out of the Syrian inventory.

BTW, talking about the future years: what is with my proposal from the post
above?

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