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