Talk:Iraqi Air Force

What about Iraq-Iran war?

Point of view concerns

This article seems not to have an NPOV - seems to be written in a very patriotic/pro-Iraq style celebrating victories only. Should probably be extended. --86.137.152.81 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. No mention of any air-to-air losses of Iraqi aircraft whatsoever in Desert Storm, Northern Watch/Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom? So the Iraqi Air Force had no losses except a few from ground attacks during those operations? Wow. This goes beyond being "allowed to betray a patriotic tone." Besides, when did the principle of being "allowed to betray a patriotic tone" supplant or modify NPOV? Holy (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

People from the military organization in question are likely to be good information sources. They're allowed to betray a patriotic tone. Other countries have patriots too. 72.225.217.252 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)tnh

WP places no restrictions on the views of its editors (they may be exceedingly patriotic or entirely devoid of patriotism etc) however all edits should conform to the neutral point of view policy which does not sit comfortably with text which betrays a patriotic tone. Greenshed (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Roundel

The roundel that was on this page was never confirmed upon requests, nor a link provided; I have reverted to the older roundel until documentation proves the new roundel 206.251.0.98 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq war?

As User:213.137.118.15 pointed out, over 2 years ago! The Iran-Iraq war is not mentioned in the history. I will have to correct this. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History

This article lacks history of the Iraqi Air Force from the Iran-Iraq war to their former aircraft inventory. Someone do something please. EZ1234 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry people, I have expanded the history section of the air force including the Iran-Iraq war--EZ1234 (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iraqi Air Force/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I would suggest that the "Aircraft Inventory" subsection and the "Unknown Inventory" section be placed in a section together. I would title the section "Aircraft Inventory", with "Unknown Inventory" as a subsection.

   Why are the Dassault Super Etendard's still in the 'Unknown inventory' section if they were given back?

   Yeah they should be removed from the 'Unknown inventory' section.

   • Section titles should be uncapitalized except for the beginning word and any names. Therefore, "1970s and the Yom Kippur War" is correct, "Order of battle" is correct, but "Aircraft Inventory" is incorrect.
   • There should be no external links in the body of the article itself, such as there are in the Air Force Commanders section. These should either be formatted as references, moved to an External links section, or removed alltogether.
   • One or two sentence paragraphs should either be expanded or combined with other sections.
   • I have not done a complete check of the prose, due to the severity of the referencing problems. When most of the referencing has been taken care of, I will do a second run-through of the article to catch any prose problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • My biggest concern with this article is the references, both inadequate references and incorrectly formatted references.
   • References are needed:

   • The first paragraph of the History section.
   • The last sentence of the 1940s subsection.
   • All of the first and third paragraphs and the last half of the second paragraph of the 1950s and early 1960s section.
   • The last sentence of the Six-Day War section.
   • All of the first and third paragraphs and all but the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 1970s and the Yom Kippur War section.
   • All but the first sentence of the first and second paragraphs of the 1980s- War with Iran section.
   • The last sentence of the first and third paragraphs and all of the second, third and fifth thru last paragraphs of the 1990s- Gulf War and no-fly zones section.
   • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Operation Iraqi Freedom - 2003 section.
   • The third, fourth, six and seventh commanders in the Air Force commanders section.
   • The first three paragraphs of the Post- Invasion to Present section.
   • The fifth and sixth squadrons in the Order of battle section.
   • The references in the Aircraft Inventory section are confusing to me. You have refs in three different columns, and I have a feeling that not all of the information is referenced. Please make sure that everything is referenced, and try to put refs in as few columns as possible.
   • The entire Unknown Inventory section
   • Reference #6 is dead....try the Web archive.

   • Now, on to formatting:

   • References should follow, not precede, punctuation.
   • All web references should have an access date
   • Web references should be formatted so that the title is the link, rather than having the title and then a bare link.
   • All web references should have a publisher, as well as an author if available.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   While I tried to find NPOV, I doubt that I got it all...please ensure that there are no mentions of such things as "obsolete" aircraft without references, no things such as "embarrassing" losses of aircraft w/o refs, "The Iraqi Air Force had another trick up its sleeve" is NPOV (in 6-Day War section)........etc.

   When I was copy-editing, parts of the article seemed like (to me) that they were biased toward Iraq. Then it was biased toward Iran. I tried to do what I could, but...

   ...I missed stuff, I'm sure (I'm in the middle of a FAC for The Sword of Shannara) and I think that I already dealt with the "embarrassing" NPOV part, but you get the general idea.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • This article appears fairly stable. However, there have been several changes to aircraft numbers by various registered users and an anon IP since the nominating editor last edited. Since the references in this section are confusing to me (see the comments above), I'm not sure if these changes are accurate or simply vandalism or good faith but wrong edits. Please check this.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has some fairly serious referencing problems. I am putting the article on hold so that these concerns can be addressed. If you have any questions, you can ask here on the review page or on my talk page. Feel free to check off or otherwise comment on the points above as you resolve them. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This should not be a GA unless major improvements are made...this actually should have been a quick-fail...It requires many, many more references. the_ed17 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I generally choose not to quick fail an article unless it is completely unworthy of GA status; for example, if it is still a stub, or something else equally ridiculous. While I agree that this article does need a lot of TLC before it becomes GA, I have seen articles that were in worse shape than this one become something very close to FA status within only a few days when a dedicated group of editors take the review to heart and work hard on the article. If the editors decide not to do the work required to get the article to GA status, the review is always there as suggestions for another editor to work on at some point in the future. Just doing a review of the sort I have done above takes very little time - 45 minutes at the most. If you notice, I have a disclaimer above saying that I haven't fully reviewed the prose (which is generally what takes the most time in a review), and I will only do so when the article is almost fully referenced. If the article gets to that point, I will be more than happy to review the prose...if not, no skin off my nose and very little time wasted.

While WP is a community of editors and various viewpoints who work together towards consensus, I am the lead reviewer for the GA review of this article, and so I will leave the article on hold for another few days until I can be sure that either work is continuing on the article or nothing is being done. Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

First: Alright, you have very good reasons for your actions, and I now find myself agreeing with them. Second: I'm sorry for butting in on this GA. Third: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to try to tell you what to do with your GA-review... My apoligies, the_ed17 00:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem on the "butting in". I do it myself on occasion :) I also apologize if I got a little hot under the collar...I probably shouldn't play around on WP when I'm annoyed with my RL... :P Please feel free to contribute to either the article or the review as much as you wish. I noticed that you placed a POV tag on the top of the article... I didn't notice POV problems, but this is probably because I didn't actually read the prose very thoroughly, just skimmed checking for major stuff. If you have specific examples of POV stuff, please feel free to list them above under the #4 and change the icon to a question mark. The same goes for other stuff that I may have missed. Thanks for your help on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee thanks for crushing my spirit the ed17. I will add the references later. Was it TRUELY NESSASARY TO ADD ALL THOSE TAGS?--EZ1234 (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that The Ed was trying to "crush your spirit". Instead, the tags help to see where the article needs the most work. In reality, as soon as whatever the tags refer to is fixed, you can remove them. Dana boomer (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; I was just slightly annoyed when I wrote my first comment on here. However, you do need references to the history that you are giving in this article; otherwise, how does anyone know that it's true? Can you understand where I am coming from? It also needs to be neutral, meaning that it cannot be biased toward any one side; encyclopedias are meant to present information and allow the readers to conclude their own conclusion...a biased article does not do that. Anyway, if you need my help on something EZ1234, just leave me a message, and I'll do what I can...My apologies again. the_ed17 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I will be adding the rest of the refs soon. Cheers--EZ1234 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, when you get a chance, format your web references like I did on ref number's 1-5...also see the {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} templates. the_ed17 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this GA nom. There has been very little work done on the article, especially over the past few days, and there are still major issues with referencing, references and MOS. I hope to see the article at GAN again when these issues have been addressed! Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess its fair. I will attempt to complete what is needed to be done and will renominate the article Thanks for your time Dana boomer --EZ1234 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

German fighters in WW2

I think the section on the Iraqi Air Force's involvement in WW2/Anglo-Iraqi War needs to be expanded. Also, British records mention German bombers flying from airbases in Mosul to bomb RAF Habbaniya. My question is did Iraqi pilots fly any German/Italian aircraft? If so, which aircraft and when/where? Lawrencema (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unknown inventory

What is with this section? There are plenty of other aircraft used by the IQAF before the US invasion and their services are unknown. --EZ1234 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Roundel change

Has the roundel changed with the latest changes to the flag of Iraq? AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think so. According to the page about roundels, the new version is what this article currently displays as the "symbol of the IQAF" above. The image currently displayed as the roundel is probably a leftover from the Ba'athist regime (as implied by the stars) and no longer used. If this is the case, then the image needs to be changed. DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

File:IQAF_Symbol.svg was apparently the symbol of the Iraqi air force from 1931 to at least ca. 2004; File:Iraqi_Air_Force_roundel.svg is based on the 2004-2008 flag of Iraq (not on Saddam's flag), but its official status is hard to confirm from internet accessible sources (see the 2007 comment above), and of course it's now out of sync with the current flag of Iraq. AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• We have an email about the roundel which states that the one currently displayed is not the correct one and would likely be considered offensive by some Iraqi citizens. I have asked Professor Google and can't find an authority for this roundel outside Wikimedia sites. The email also raises concerns about copyright. I think it has to come out for now. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, currently the IqAF doesn't have a roundel. Insignia consist of the national flag on the tail fin, and "IRAQI AIR FORCE" on the fuselage sides where the roundel would ordinarily be located - File:Iraq Air Force T-6A.jpg shows this very well. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unverified inventory

The aircraft inventory section mentioned 36 F-16s which Iraq sought to buy, with plans for an additional 252 F-16s in 2015. The reference cited, however, only mentions the 36. I removed the "252 F-16s" part. JBHemlock (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

also the fact that the page talkes about the mirage 1 and TA 50 IS FALSE there are no evedience on the return of the mirage as they are NO MIRAGE 1 IN IRAQI AIR FORCE ANY MORE also the TA 50 iraq is intrested but no request yet duo to the fact THEY DONT HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT AND TRAINED PILOT so stop making changes or show the evedience -- 15:42, 14 January 2010 79.74.142.48

Aircraft losses correction

I made a correction to the table of the Gulf losses .

MiG-29 losses were 6 not 5

MiG-23 losses were 9 not 8

These two extra losses took place on Jan. 17th when a MiG-29 shut downed a MiG-23 by mistake and then the same MiG-29 crashed into the ground trying to engage USAF F-15E . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.199.61 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi. those numbers are incorrect. they are the US "claims" from 1991 and not the actual losses suffered and recorded by Iraq. Those are detailed here:

Title : Iraqi Perspectives Project Phase II. Um Al-Ma'arik (The Mother of All Battles): Operational and Strategic Insights from an Iraqi Perspective, Volume 1 (Revised May 2008) http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA484530

That information is basically the "top secret" records of the Iraqi air force that were never publicised but were captured by the US in 2003 and translated by the US military and have been available in the public domain for a couple of years. Shall I update the main page with the correct information? In Particular the details in page 373 of the report

"table 7, Iraqi air force status June 1991, appendix to top secret Iraqi air power study showing losses from gulf war".

additional interesting details about the iraqi airforce from this one compilation of official iraqi air force documents include:

I can see a recon photo of al khafji taken by a MiG25 in august 1990. - page 47.

page 61. confirmation that the AC-130 was downed with SA16.

page 119-120 - iraqi mig25s flew 4 recon flights over kuwait in july 1990.

page 126. - unwitting russian participation in the iraqi navy attack “[t]here were Russian experts on board for the purpose of training the [the missile boat] crews.”

page 127 - kuwaiti patrol boat managed to hit an iraqi missile boat. the iraqi missile boats (both of them) had non functional weapons.

page 129 - an iraqi super frelon supposed to support the naval assault was shot down by an i-hawk.

page 132- according to the iraf, kuwaiti af flew 14 attack and 6 air defence sorties on the second of august.

page 133-4 : chief blame for failure to capture the sabahs was on the iraqi air force.

page 135: 3-4 army aviation helicopters were destroyed by kuwaiti af. but many more were lost by collision with powerlines and collisions with each other during landing by flying at night in large formations and without night training or NVGs.

page 221: plan of attack on aircraft carriers. Nevertheless, the planners determined that if they were ordered to try “the best way to disrupt the operation of the aircraft carrier” was to use 18 Sukhoi-22 M4 planes carrying 12 C28L [Kh-28] missiles, four Mirage F-1 planes carrying AIM-39 missiles, and 12 Mirage planes carrying AS-30 missiles. Of the 34 aircraft required for the mission, “only 12 of them will reach the target and [these] won’t come back after their duty is over.” Moreover, the study continued, “the loss of 34 advanced ground attack planes to disrupt one aircraft carrier out of [the] nine carriers mobilized by the enemy in the region was ineffective.”

also on the same page, there seems to have been no plan for the iran evacuation plan before january 1991.

on page 223: kuwaiti I-HAWK battery was deployed for the defence of iraq's nuclear reactor. iraq managed to briing into operation two of the four kuwaiti batteries.

page 246 - the use of camels to resupply the 25th infantry division in the desert.

page 273 - the iraqi mirages sent to strike ras tanura made an air to air refueling along the iran border at 100m.

page 280 - desscribes the situation with the boats that tried to escape to iran. confirming that 6 boats were sunk (21 claimed by the US) and that three boats got to iran (one OSA, one polnocny and the T43). also 20 sailors died on the boats that sank and 68 taken POW.

page 372: The major accomplishments of the Iraqi Air Force were measured in assets not lost. As the study noted “as a result of the competent measures our air force took to minimize the losses whether before or after the aggression, we were able to achieve the following”:886 􀂃 Seventy-five percent of all combat and specialized planes were “rescued.” The report notes that this percent does not include “planes destroyed as a result of ground operations and riot.” By comparison, the study continues, “the losses of the Arab forces in the 1967 War, on the Egyptian front, were approximately 70 percent of the operating forces” and the “Zionist air power” then was much less than what Iraq faced in 1991. 􀂃 The Air Force “rescued” 92% of all of the air weapons as a result of “concealment and dissemination.” More than 98% of the “expensive guided weapons” were also saved. 􀂃 Seventy six percent of the “very expensive electronic war equipment” was preserved. 􀂃 “The losses in personnel amounted to .096 percent and it is a small percentage…”

on page 374, interesting details about the use of jet engines to create dust storms to defend against air attacks, and their limitations in use.

page 376. analysis of coallition attacks effectiveness. Percentage of the targets hit: 57%.897 􀂃 Percentage of “guided projectiles” [precision munition]: 45%. 􀂃 “The enemy did not apply the technique of comprehensive regional bombardment. Only the vital areas of the targets were bombed.” 􀂃 “The enemy succeeded in destroying most of the secured aircraft bunkers and command and control centers using guided aerial (1,000 kg) bombs, which proved the fragility of these bunkers.” The report added, however that “the air defense command centers, which were designed as strikeproof entities, remained intact and unaffected.”898 􀂃 “The targets that efficiently applied smoke and dust were exposed to severe raids and bombing, more than necessary to destroy it…” 􀂃 “The principle of equipment dispersal emerged as effective, as it lessened the losses. [This] was particularly apparent when aircraft were dispersed outside their specified bunkers.

page 377: 65% of iraq's SA2 and SA6 sites were destroyed, 26% of SA3 batteries and 120 radar stations, only the low altitude rolands seemed to have survived well (7% loss). and by the end of the war had exhausted 98% of their SA2 missiles.

Iraq had actually retained 3 I-HAWK batteries from kuwait (not 2 as stated in an earlier page), and 2 of these survived.

final iraqi claims on coallition are 44 aircraft and 120 cruise missiles downed.

page 378. indicates that during the first three days iraqi interceptors flew 42 combat interceptions and downed 6 aircraft. quite the shocking claim.

Most surprisingly, the report noted that “after assessing that intercept operations were in vain, coupled with the expected losses, [the pilots] were not convinced and were afraid to carry out their missions (as many aircraft were destroyed moments after takeoff).”

they state that only the I-HAWK missiles could deal with multiple targets.

the Strelas proved effective against cruise missiles. first i read about this.

page 383 - interesting analysis and statistical methods of the "lazy officers".

page 387-389 very interesting lessons learned from the RG.

page 393. iraq's total ground force losses in the war: “1,772 tanks, 939 [Armored Personnel] Carriers, and 1,474 cannon (these are about HALF what the coalition claimed initially).

Page 394 - shows iraqs preoccupation with countering the apache helicopters. the doctrine that grew out of this was actually rather effective in karbala in 2003.

page 398-399: Iraq's targets in israel: “The ministry of defense and the army chief of staff’s building in Tel Aviv.” 􀂃 “The main communications station in Tel Aviv.” 􀂃 “The al-Khudayrah Power Station.” 􀂃 “The industrial area of Tel Aviv.” 􀂃 “The gasoline refinery in Haifa.” 􀂃 “The technology institute in Haifa.” 􀂃 “The Haifa naval base.” 􀂃 “Haifa and Tel Aviv ports.” 􀂃 “Ben Gurion Airport.” 􀂃 “The Dimona [nuclear] reactor.”

page 402: details of Iraq's three ballistic missile "deception battalions" that operated using the same procedures as the "live" battalions. and still the coallition didn't hit any of the deception launchers.

It seems Iraq hid its 14 real launchers among 78 "deception" vehicles. and none of them were hit.

finally. Iraqi claims from the 1991 gulf war are detailed here: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-iraq-gulf.war.pdf

2 kills:

17th January, 84sqn MiG25PDS flown by Zuhair Dawood used R40RD to shoot down USN FA18C flown by Speicher.

19th january, 6sqn MiG29 flown by Jameel Sayhood used R60MK to shot down RAF Tornado GR1A flown by Lennox/Weeks

4 damaged:

17th January, 63sqn, MiG23ML flown by Hussam used R24T to damaged F111F of the 48th TFW USAF

17th January, 63sqn, MiG23ML used an R24T to damage F111F of the 48th TFW USAF (serial 70-2384)

17th January, 6thsqn, MiG29 flown by Khudair Hijab used R60MK to damage F111F of the 48th TFW USAF

17th January, 6th Sqn, MiG29 flown by Khudair hijab used an R27R to damage B52 of the 4300BW flown by Mason/Linwood.

Also there are a large number of errors on the Iraqi air force starting from 1931 and all the way down to 1991. Can I also update them?

add the correct squadron numbers, supply and operational details and other such information? for example the myth of iraq using "all mercenaries" in the 1967 war is incorrect. the only foreign combat participant in the IrAF was one Pakistani pilot who shot down 2 israeli fighters. all other kills were made by Iraqi pilots. Hayderaziz (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you have a reliable, verifiable source, be bold. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

well I've made my edits. and included source for most of what I included (some I simply cannot source since its "word of mouth" from Iraqi air force officers). But most info is sourced.

The only issue is with the table of losses from 1991. I included the Iraqi Airforce's own internal table which is much more accurate than the "US estimate" one below it. Could someone remove the obsolete losses table? there also remains old information in the article which contradicts the updates I've put up, but i haven't deleted to avoid any "edit wars". I will make some cleanups to my additions in grammar and correct formatting for sources as long as everyone's happy with my updates. Hayderaziz (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

While the article as a whole needs a good mopping, the '1990s- Persian Gulf War and no-fly zones' section, especially, is at times difficult to comprehend, and reads like an essay. It needs a total rewrite, really, I guess... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That section is a terrible mess, and whoever typed those pages with this 􀂃 symbol made it far worse. Wolcott (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Too iraqi centric - it accepts anything that is written on a generic "Iraqi air force top secret document" and grant it for totally true

--Mt hg (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I understand that wikipedia is trying to give voice to any party in the world, but this is just against the common sense and knowledge. Reading this article a reader would tell that in 1991 Iraq was not defeated! He would say that finally Iraq achieved its intended target that was surviving to an imperialistic aggression! While the facts are so different. In a lot of military articles (Israeli-Arab wars, Yugoslav wars, Soviet operations and related equipment) too much voice is given to the defeated party rumors and claims while the official voice of the winner is dismissed as it never existed. It's like the propaganda war of these loosing countries is going on after the actual military defeat. Let's try to give a little bit more credit to free world democracies and their free press compared to dictatorships propaganda and misinformation. Citing a so called "internal top secret Iraqi document" is not helpful: in any country, but mostly in dictatorships, everyone has to cover his own ass when reporting to his superiors and generally little double checking is done by higher ranks.

In 1991, the only iraqi air-to-air credit was the FA-18 by a MiG-25. The rest are b*s* - so many rumors about British Tornados, the Italian Tornado, the B-52 (HARM's way, it was hit by a AGM-88 missile) and obviously some USAF/USNAF aircraft for free...

On the other hand, in the FA-18 article, it's impossible to write any sentence that even reports the claim: in that article the FA-18 cannot be lost to any other mean, but "unknown causes" (not even accepting military causes).

---Mt Hg. From 1991 until now the Iraqi perspective and information has been COMPLETELY lacking regarding the wars. The Iraqi OFFICIAL INTERNAL documents cited are captured documents that the US Military themselves took and translated and published. This information clears up a LOT of details regarding actual Iraqi losses both in the 1980-88 war with iran as well as the 1991 gulf war and is one of the most important pieces of data upon which the foundation of the air war can be assessed with the opposing perspective's data being taken into account. Do note that the information is not "public propaganda" by saddam's regime, but INTERNAL DOCUMENTS of the Presidential Secretariat which audited the reports of the Iraqi Military (and all other branches). The fact that the US overclaimed their air-air kills is not a surprise... did you take it as gospel? Another fact is that the US destroyed far more Iraqi aircraft on the ground inside Harderend Aircraft Shelters than they had thought previously! Also the Iraqis have not claimed a SINGLE kill for an aircraft that was not actually shot down and admitted to by the US (can you say the same vice versa with regards to US kill claims?)... and all kill claims in the Iraqi air force are actually investigated and proven before they are issued (e.g. the pilot who shot down the F/A18 was only awarded his kill in 1995 once the crash site of the F/A18 was found and investigated. So I do hope you stop with your patronising and condescending tone about Iraqis since I am sure that such "hateful personal views" are not in line with a wikipedia article about the Iraqi Air Force. Hayderaziz (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Titles and abbreviations

What titles do the Squadrons ACTUALLY have. The squadron articles use No. 23 Squadron etc. etc. and the references used for these articles quote the abbreviation for Iraqi Air Force as IqAF. Can we have a concensus to lay any doubts to rest. Better still let us use the actual titles and abbreviations used by the Iraqi Air Force!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Acquisition of Mi-28s

I have found recent photographic evidence to support the claims that the Iraqi Air Force have acquired Mi-28s. Photos can be found here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?101603-new-iraq-army/page63 Meevinman (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

While interesting --and I just spent some time flipping through pages on that website, I'm afraid it does not quite count as a reliable source. Do you have something more official that we can use?

Cheers,

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyvios

Please consider removing the parts violating copyright. Just compare the article with this source! --Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iraqi Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090317080924/http://www.mod.uk:80/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/IraqiPilotGraduatesFromRafCranwell.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/IraqiPilotGraduatesFromRafCranwell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IrAF widely over-rated numbers in 1990 (with reliable sources!)

The article says that there were 88 Mirage F.1 in 1990, plus 8 ex-kuwaiti. It seems highly doubtful, as the Mirage sent to Irak were roughly 120 examples (and NOT 200 as some source years ago stated). No less but a dozen were shot down by F-14s alone, many other were shot down by F-4, perhaps F-5s, HAWK, and some a.a. and others were lost by accidents. So there is very little probability that 88 lasted in service in 1990: simply, with thousands of sorties, there is no probability to have only 24 aircraft lost in eight years of intense war.

Not only this: Globalsecurity.org states that the IrAF, in 1990, had only 1,034 aircrafts. Of those, 47 were cargos and 321 trainers (even if capable, in some cases, to fight). About the first line aircrafts, there were exactly: Attack 390: 60 Su-25, 94 Mirage F.1 (overated to me), 90 MiG-23 (not over 120), 25 Su-24, 70 Su-20/22 (not 120), 30 Su-7(? probabilty already phased out), 30 J-6 (idem).

16 bombers: 8 Tu-16 and 8 Tu-22 (phased out already then)

fighters: 245: 30 MiG-29, 25 MiG-25, 150 MiG-21, 40 J-7 (the MiG-23 are evidently rated all to the fighter/bomber class).

Recce: 12: 5 MiG-21 and 7 MiG-25.

That means about 663 combat aircrafts, compared to around 760 of the wiki data. And this, is done despite the J-6, Tu-22, Su-7 were already out of service even then, in 1990. Instead, we should cut by 68 (Tu-22, Su-7, J-6) if not more (the Mirage F.1 alone, had around 40 losses in GW I and therefore, they must be less than the rated value of G.S.). GS states at once, that the Mirage F.1 in 1990 were only 65.

All this doesn't account, apparently, to the losses that IrAF and IrAC had in the 1990 invasion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.htm

G.S. assured too that:

Some published estimates suggest that there were as many as 750 combat aircraft in the Iraqi Air Force at the time of the 1991 Gulf War. Other estimates suggest that the actual number of fighter and ground attack aircraft was closer to 500. One problem with the higher number is that it is apparently derived from calculating aircraft deliveries during the 1980s, without accounting for combat and other losses during the decade of war with Iran.and While most sources report that over 90 of the 113 one-seat Mirage F.1s from France remained in service as of 1991, other estimates suggest that the number was far lower. And while Iraq received over 200 MiG-21s and F-7s during the 1980s, by some accounts over half of these had been lost by the time of the 1991 Gulf War. The UN and Kuwait say Iraq did not return extensive Kuwaiti military equipment, including eight Mirage F-1 aircraft.

Basically, we cannot seriously so underrate the level of loss suffered by IrAF as they did not have hundreds of them during the Gulf War (with IRAN). This is HIGHLY MISLEADING for any reader.

Moreover, if we check the SIPRI site, then we have that Irak got from URSS a total of: 178 MiG-21s, 126 Su-22, 140 MiG-23. It's basically impossible that in 1990 there were so many MiG-21/J-7s in service, less then the Su-22, of which about the 50% were lost with Iran, it's the same with the MiG-23/23BN.

This issue need to be corrected ASAP, as even over 25 years after the D.Storm, still the IrAF is depicted much bigger than it was, always the syndrome of 'enemy 10 ft tall', probably, and US war propaganda did not much to clear the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraqi Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205094032/http://www.nmc.gov.iq/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=240 to http://www.nmc.gov.iq/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=240

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iraqi Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030306212609/http://www.scramble.nl/iq.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/iq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030306212609/http://www.scramble.nl/iq.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/iq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513020947/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122056503871901333.html.html to https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122056503871901333.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New planes on order

Hi, i am adding discussion because there is a contract signed for iraq to buy 14 dassault rafales but i don’t think they arrived yet so should we add them in and put on “14 on order” ? HappyMouse4620 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

any reference for signed contract? because all I can found is still only intention to purchase 14 rafales (such as this reference). Ckfasdf (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)