Iraqi MiG-25 aircraft, American aircraft firing missiles at the edge of their maximum effective range.

Sounds like the MiG's crossed into the no-fly-zone, lit up the American aircraft with their radar and then turned tail and ran.

Just another example of Clinton's failed military planning....


U.S. Airforce and Navy missiles fail to reach their mark.

It is being reported that yesterday there was some action in the southern no-fly zone in Iraq.
The action involved Iraqi violations of the zone by Mig aircraft.

Two U.S. Airforce F-15 Eagles were illuminated by the radars of two Iraqi Mig 25s.
The American aircraft responded by firing one AIM-7 Sparrow and three AIM-120 AMRAM radar homing air-to-air missiles.

All four failed to hit their targets.

Two F-14 Tomcats were illuminated by two Iraqi Mig 25s and two AIM 54 Phoenix missiles were fired.

These two also failed to hit their targets.

" We are willing to protect our aircraft. We are willing to protect the no-fly zone ", said Kenneth Bacon, Pentagon spokesman.

General Henry Shelton seemed to rationalize the escape of the Iraqi Migs with, they " fired at the edge of the engagement envelope ".

A small number of other Iraqi aircraft types, including F1 Mirages and Mig 23s, participated in the violation of the no-fly zone with momentary incursions below the 33rd parallel. The only reported casuality was a Mig 23 which apparently ran out fuel short of the runway upon landing, and crashed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some were shot at an Iraqi MIG-25 in a no fly zone about 2 years ago and missed. Any specifics as to what range the Iraqis were engaged? Did the F15s also fire, if so what missile did they use? Why were no Iraqis planes hit? I'm curious about this and frankly a little concerned that six US warplanes fired their weapons at enemy planes and didn't hit one.

The Eagles & Toms were both carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles...

What a horrible PK for that engament, right at 0%. Im sure the Mig 25s sprinted past Mach 2, and opened up the distace fast. That is bad performance for the ultimate airplane killing AIM54 tho, huh? AMRAAM sucked, too. Quite a waste of cash.

Quoted: What a horrible PK for that engament, right at 0%. Im sure the Mig 25s sprinted past Mach 2, and opened up the distace fast. That is bad performance for the ultimate airplane killing AIM54 tho, huh? AMRAAM sucked, too. Quite a waste of cash.

Most likely, the Iraqis got lit up, said 'Oh-shit' and ran for cover...

Remember, ranges & design specs for BVR AAMs are based on a meeting engagement, the range is much less in a persuit scenario, and the pilots may have launched earlier than 'optimum' range....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: AMRAAM and near-term mods will do the job. coupled with super-cruising launch aircraft, deployment of raptor, How many super-cruising Raptors has the US Navy bought to replace the F-14/AIM-54?… ANdy smartass - what part of supercruising F/A-18s don't you get? .

Yo! smartass! YOU refered to the Raptor… and F/A-18's can't supercruise! they can only go Mach 1.6, and that's  clean with full afterburner……

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: . It's an F-22 exclusive feature for now...

Eurofighter Typhoon has proven it's ability to supercruise… we are catching up!

Andy

The Eagles & Toms were both carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles...

14s can't carry them. The dont have the cetral computer/radar to support them. If they did they would have replaced the 54 a long time ago.

And a 15E with 229s can supercruise-when its clean. It will get above mach w/o AB at altitude. Now it doesn't fit  "true" definition but it will technically do it.  

Quoted: troops without air, armor, or arty are basically sitting ducks... See Mogadishu... 1 or 2 super-expensive air assets (AC-130s, AH-64s or F-16s) would have made a big difference.... or one very cheap, simple, 95%+ availability rating, A-10. You can get 4 A-10's for the price of one AH-64.

Fixed it for you.

Quoted: The Eagles & Toms were both carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles... 14s can't carry them. The dont have the cetral computer/radar to support them. If they did they would have replaced the 54 a long time ago. And a 15E with 229s can supercruise-when its clean. It will get above mach w/o AB at altitude. Now it doesn't fit  "true" definition but it will technically do it.

What's the true definition of "supercruise".  Is it using the AB to break Mach1 and then maintaining with military power, or is it breaking Mach1 without AB?

Supercruise is the ability to break mach in military power only and to stay there.

Jason

The Phoenix is a bit over-hyped IMHO. It would have likely achieved decent kill ratios against large Soviet bombers. But in long range engagements of fighter aircraft, it wasn't that impressive. It simply couldn't maneuver well enough at long range to hit nimble fighter aircraft with consistency. Considering the huge cost per missile, that would be a lot of wasted ordnance.

I think the newer versions of the AMRAAM will be much more capable for the threats we are most likely to face.

Quoted: The Phoenix is a bit over-hyped IMHO. It would have likely achieved decent kill ratios against large Soviet bombers. But in long range engagements of fighter aircraft, it wasn't that impressive. It simply couldn't maneuver well enough at long range to hit nimble fighter aircraft with consistency. Considering the huge cost per missile, that would be a lot of wasted ordnance. I think the newer versions of the AMRAAM will be much more capable for the threats we are most likely to face.

+1!

ANdy

I grew up at PAX River MD,  my dad was a naval aviator.  Nothing quite like hearing the burn of a missle's motor being tested.  

Dad took us on a few tours of his carrier, CVN-69.  We were inside an ordnance elevator or something standing next to a Phoenix missle.  That thing was huge.  

Another Cold War Queen, sad to see such a flexible, proven weapon system go.

Quoted: Quoted: The Eagles & Toms were both carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles... 14s can't carry them. The dont have the cetral computer/radar to support them. If they did they would have replaced the 54 a long time ago. And a 15E with 229s can supercruise-when its clean. It will get above mach w/o AB at altitude. Now it doesn't fit  "true" definition but it will technically do it.   What's the true definition of "supercruise".  Is it using the AB to break Mach1 and then maintaining with military power, or is it breaking Mach1 without AB?

What I mean is it will do it in a clean jet-nothing on it.  You would never take a clean jet into combat so it's really is useless. Also when you are using mil power to get there and hold it, it eats a ton of gas and you can't sustain it for very long. In the 22 the engines can maintain a lower power setting(not using as much gas) to hold the airspeed above mach.