MiG-25 gunned down by an F-5?

[mixelflick]

I believe oldiraqiairforce...

[miguelgaditano]

I have a question for Tom Cooper. You are talking about a MiG-25RB, while in your book Iraqi fighters you say it was a MiG-25PDS. Supposedly you inspected the plane yourself and so did "Ahmad Sadik", as he quoted:

"Next day I went with a group of specialized Iraqi officers to inspect the Iraqi Mig-25PDS in Saddam's AB. We managed to have a fairly good look on the aircraft from all angles there was no indication whatsoever that the aircraft was hit by any missile. Then a ladder was brought and after taking off my boots I walked on the back of the Mig; counting holes and retrieving 2 or 3 bullets. Further analysis showed that it was 20mm ones from the guns of an F-5..."

Why are these two versions contradictory?

thanks

[basher54321]

Is that book 2008?

Have got most of the more recent Arab MiGs series - and each one actually starts with a chapter of amendments and corrections to the previous volume - so you would think it's either a typo or just better information has come to light since then.

[miguelgaditano]

Thanks for the response. In what volume is that information ammended?
regards

[nikolaos]

The Arab Mig series of books, although are good, they do not cover the Iran-Iraq war, only the Arab Israeli wars , so this particular incident is not covered nor amended .

[basher54321]

Thanks for the response. In what volume is that information ammended?
regards

It isn't - am just saying that old information often gets updated as a matter of course when better information comes along.

[miguelgaditano]

thank you Basher

I know that sometimes publications have typos, although it doesn't seem to be the case with that MiG-25, as from RB to PDS there is a big change.

I also know that sometimes there is not much information available about a topic or a particular dogfight, but the problem is that normally there is not much time between one publication and another, so we can't be buying (or publishing) information randomly, based on rumours, then refute it in the next volume or book. In my humble view, that is not professional, and the international community really gets impregnated about these informations, and then the snowball gets bigger, and bigger, and we don't really know anymore what information is right and which is wrong.

Once again, I appreciate your point my friend

thanks

[tomcooper]

Why are these two versions contradictory?

Because Ahmad was talking from memory.

Not everybody's memory is 100% perfect (mine, for example, is terrible, which is why I tend to write down a lot).

[tomcooper]

thank you Basher

I know that sometimes publications have typos, although it doesn't seem to be the case with that MiG-25, as from RB to PDS there is a big change.

It was no 'typo'. It's a combination of factors like
- a) status of information at a specific point in time, and
- b) insistence on providing to the reader exactly what the source said.

If the source A says, 'things happened like this', and I've got absolutely nothing contradicting that statement, as a 'reporting point': I've got absolutely no right to go re-writing source's statement, or commenting it, or do whatever else of that sort in order to influence the reader (which is what not only a number of authors are doing, but even certain editors). Such BS has happened in the history of the Middle East about a million of times, and I do not intend to follow that practice. That would be (i.e. is) unprofessional behaviour.

As author, I have the duty to forward to readership exactly what the source said, precisely in the way the source said it - and this to the last dot and comma.

However, as somebody researching about a specific topic (in this case: Iran-Iraq War) for years, and then for decades, I cannot avoid meeting different sources, i.e. people contradicting statements made by somebody else in the past. I also cannot avoid travelling and finding out things that contradict what some of my sources recalled or stated.

When that happens, I must give these people precisely the same rights ('everybody is equal') - and forward their statements to readers in exactly the way they made them. I.e. I must 'update' the information in the next publication.

Therefore, every next publication to specific topic contains an 'update' of what was published in the last publication to the same topic.

You are free to consider this 'unprofessional': I can ascertain you that not only about 99% of readers, but me too, consider this 'matter of person's integrity' (and that it 'takes balls', too, to go and correct my own earlier publication in the public).

In the case of book-series - like Arab MiGs, for example - such process is obvious, plain clear. There is a Volume 1, and, 7 years later, there is a Volume 6. There is continuity, and thus I can add updates (i.e. 'Addenda/Errata') in every new volume. Similar is possible to do even in case of smaller book-series, published within much shorter time-frames, like Libyan Air Wars, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. This is so because of availability of social media, information-flow and -exchange have been accelerated by about 3000 times in comparison to the situation just 15-20 years ago.

But, sadly: such book-series are exceptions: something that's happening extremely seldom. Publishers generally avoid running the same book-series beyond the volume 3. As can be seen, already these two book-series have been published by two different publishers - although they are directly related (indeed, although 'Libyan Air Wars' series is de-facto a direct continuation of 'Arab MiGs' series). Fact is, a different publisher is not curious to start some new book with Addenda/Errata to some other, earlier book, published by some other publisher. Why 'admit' somebody else's mistakes?

Therefore, sometimes it's impossible to point out: 'hey, there's a new info in this or that regards'.

This means anything but that information is 'published randomly'. On the contrary: there are clear and simple rules, and readers can easily orientate - if they care to do so. Namely, the practice of 'updating available information' is simple and clear, and dictating that a new publication to the same topic is always 'at the latest stand of knowledge' (in this regards, I even go as far as to refuse simple re-prints of various earlier publications, although that would be 'easy earned money' - if I know they contain 'obsolete' information').

Therefore, my advice: check the date of publishing, and everything is going to be clear.

[tehrani]

New video released on ÈIran F-5 gunned down a Mig-25È. it seems that Mig-25 managed to get back to Iraq

[nastle]

New video released on ÈIran F-5 gunned down a Mig-25È. it seems that Mig-25 managed to get back to Iraq

wait but Tom just said it was an Mig25RB ?

[mixelflick]

Interesting account..

Dunno about you guys, but I couldn't make out any Mig-25 in that gun camera footage. I'm sure a trained eye might, but it just looks like a blob to me. I wonder why his sidewinders didn't fire? Generally speaking, its a lot more reliable a weapon than the AIM-7 and Phoenix IMO.

In any case... I wonder why the Mig-25 didn't just punch his burners an accelerate away when he realized the F-5 was on his tail? Instead, it looks like he tried to maneuver.. not the Mig's forte', and more or less played the F-5's game. If it was me, I would have been up, up and away REAL fast LOL.

[sferrin]

Accelerating takes time. (Let's not forget the F-5 can accelerate too. How much time does the MiG stay in it's gun sights before opening up enough distance?)

[nastle]

Interesting account..

Dunno about you guys, but I couldn't make out any Mig-25 in that gun camera footage. I'm sure a trained eye might, but it just looks like a blob to me. I wonder why his sidewinders didn't fire? Generally speaking, its a lot more reliable a weapon than the AIM-7 and Phoenix IMO.

In any case... I wonder why the Mig-25 didn't just punch his burners an accelerate away when he realized the F-5 was on his tail? Instead, it looks like he tried to maneuver.. not the Mig's forte', and more or less played the F-5's game. If it was me, I would have been up, up and away REAL fast LOL.

so was it a mig-25 RB or PD ?

[basher54321]

so was it a mig-25 RB or PD

MiG-25RB is the claim both from Cooper and Taghvaee - they seem to have been taking familiar MiG-25RB recon routes - so go with that.


No such thing as a MiG-25E is there - probably a translator s/w error above.