How did the Iranians get the Phoenix to work?

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3f762c9c@bg2....

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Ragnar" wrote in message
link.net...

"Hobo" wrote in message
...


Some people here have been claiming that
the Iranians made effective and
widespread use of the Phoenix missle against
Iraq. I have always read
that after the Shah fell US civilian technicians
altered the F-14s they
were servicing so that they could never
fire the Phoenix. If the
Iranians *did* use the Phoenix, how did
they overcome the sabotage?

They had the maintenance manuals, US-trained
technicians, spare parts, and
time.

They made a homebuilt Phoenix. I went to school
with Iranian engineering
students at CSUF, they have the skill.


Not to mention clandestine US assistance in the early 1980s, plus
shipments
of -54A missiles when the USN went to the -54C. It appears that they have
reverse-engineered the -54A and build an unliscensed version of Phoenix.

Matt,
USN AIM-54As (and even less so their AIM-54Cs) are the same as Iranian
AIM-54As: so, they could not have been given to Iran even during the
"Irangate" affair.

The Iranians knew this so they also never asked for complete missiles. What
they were looking for instead (and what was usually smuggled) were
maintenance+upgrade packages and batteries for their AIM-54s.

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/t...hp/title=S6585

Ups, sorry: that first sentence should have been:

USN AIM-54As (and even less so their AIM-54Cs) are _NOT_ the same as
Iranian
AIM-54As: so, they could not have been given to Iran even during the
"Irangate" affair.

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/t...hp/title=S6585

"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nick Pedley" wrote:

No, it's solved by working out what those circuit boards did and making
replacements.

Nick

I hope Nick Pedley doesn't think he is the only one who might know this.

If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

Nick

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:48:56 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

The Iranians knew this so they also never asked for complete missiles. What
they were looking for instead (and what was usually smuggled) were
maintenance+upgrade packages and batteries for their AIM-54s.

Why couldn't they make their own batteries? It's not exactly rocket
science is it? (Unless you're putting it in a rocket, but you know
what I mean).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nick Pedley" wrote:

If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

I didn't ask the question you attempted to answer. I asked Tarver how
building replica Phoenixs would allow the Iranians to overcome sabotage
to the F-14's electronics, a worthwhile question which seemed to outwit
you.

As Tarver pointed out, they have the skills to build their own Phoenix
missiles. It therefore follows that if they can do that, they can probably
design and build their own circuit boards to allow firing of said missiles.
You seem to have missed the point he was trying to make.
Besides, as other more informed people have pointed out, the sabotage story
looks to be false.

Your question was:
".....I have always read that after the Shah fell US civilian technicians
altered the F-14s they were servicing so that they could never fire the
Phoenix. If the Iranians *did* use the Phoenix, how did they overcome the
sabotage?"

My answer was
"...it's solved by working out what those circuit boards did and making
replacements."

Admittedly not the most direct way of answering your question, but an answer
nonetheless.

Nick

"Nick Pedley" wrote in message
...

"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nick Pedley" wrote:

If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

I didn't ask the question you attempted to answer. I asked Tarver how
building replica Phoenixs would allow the Iranians to overcome sabotage
to the F-14's electronics, a worthwhile question which seemed to outwit
you.

As Tarver pointed out, they have the skills to build their own Phoenix
missiles. It therefore follows that if they can do that, they can probably
design and build their own circuit boards to allow firing of said
missiles.
You seem to have missed the point he was trying to make.
Besides, as other more informed people have pointed out, the sabotage
story
looks to be false.

Iran has a 100 pax airliner almost completed and a home grown rotary wing
industry. It would be a mistake to underestimate the intellegence of the
people of Iran. Better would be to help the people of Iran prosper, in a
free society.

"Tom Cooper" wrote:
Ups, sorry: that first sentence should have
been:

USN AIM-54As (and even less so their AIM-54Cs)
are _NOT_ the same as
Iranian
AIM-54As: so, they could not have been given
to Iran even during the
"Irangate" affair.

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/t...hp/title=S6585


Then why were new Phoenixes on Iran's shopping list during those secret
(and illegal) deals? Were those the rounds that were ordered but not delivered?


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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3f786cc9$1@bg2....

Then why were new Phoenixes on Iran's shopping list during those secret
(and illegal) deals? Were those the rounds that were ordered but not
delivered?

But, Matt,
they haven't ordered any, nor ever got any additional AIM-54s after autumn
1978 (in the sence of complete rounds).


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/t...hp/title=S6585

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:48:56 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

The Iranians knew this so they also never asked for complete missiles.
What
they were looking for instead (and what was usually smuggled) were
maintenance+upgrade packages and batteries for their AIM-54s.

Why couldn't they make their own batteries? It's not exactly rocket
science is it? (Unless you're putting it in a rocket, but you know
what I mean).

It's not a "rocket science", but not far from it either. At the time there
was simply no capability in Iran to produce such batteries.

Besides, they were not lacking the batteries all the times: most of the
times they could easily get new ones at a price of something like $10.000 on
the "black market".

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/t...hp/title=S6585

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:25:42 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:48:56 GMT, Tom Cooper wrote:

The Iranians knew this so they also never asked for complete missiles.
What
they were looking for instead (and what was usually smuggled) were
maintenance+upgrade packages and batteries for their AIM-54s.

Why couldn't they make their own batteries? It's not exactly rocket
science is it? (Unless you're putting it in a rocket, but you know
what I mean).

It's not a "rocket science", but not far from it either. At the time there
was simply no capability in Iran to produce such batteries.

Besides, they were not lacking the batteries all the times: most of the
times they could easily get new ones at a price of something like $10.000 on
the "black market".

What's special about these batteries then? Obviously they aren't
going to pay 10 grand for the sort of battery I can buy at my
local corner shop. Is it a matter of how much energy the batteries
store? That they take up a small space? That they have low internal
resistance?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia