Talk:1989 air battle near Tobruk

No casualties?

If Libya couldn't retrieve the ejected pilots from the sea, then don't we have two casulaties for Libya here? Their deaths were a direct result of being shot down by the US pilots (and not some incidental act) so I can hardly see how there were no casulaties. Osgoodelawyer 15:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This needs clarification. Were the Libyan pilots left to die, or were they recovered? — Anty♥

US forces recovered no survivors, and the Libyans denied the loss so presumably no rescue was attempted.

"As part of its ongoing freedom of navigation activities in support of 12-mile (22.2 km) territorial waters practices..." Good phrasing, i just wonder how a reciprocal incident would be described.

Yes, i agree with the previous (unsigned) comment. Camelidus 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"the Libyans did not launch a successful rescue operation to recover the pilots". Did they launch a rescue mission, but fail to find and recover the pilots, or did they fail to launch a rescue mission? The wording used is inadequate.JohnC (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

POV, Tone

This whole article sounds like it was written by a patriotic 12 year old. "they didn't have to wait until attacked" again sounds like a kid explaining his actions to a teacher. Perhaps "Their predefined orders, from ****" and retain neutral POV. I will register and attempt to make some changes for a more neutral POV. 128.147.248.10 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rules of engagement and orders from superior officers do not override the law of war - as many German and a few Japanese soldiers found after 1945. Self defense does not justify firing on aircraft which are buzzing each other. If it did WW3 would have broken out hundreds of times, as such activity - by both sides - was normal during the Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

F-14 at Reagan library

I removed a section added by user Donreed (talk) claiming one of the aircraft from this incident is now at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Actually, that aircraft is from the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) - that page has a picture in which the pilots names are clearly visible. 68.221.241.12 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

YouTube link

I removed a link to a YouTube clip in the infobox. It's a recreation of the event using the game Lock-On and radio communications. It looked more like shameless advertising than anything. Yonjuuni (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Patch

I removed the section on the commercial patch because it wasn't relevant and the patch in question clearly conveys an incident occurring 24 March 1986 and described here (retrieved 18 July 2008):

Libyan aircraft and SA-2s and 5s fired on the Americans during the mid watch on 24 March 1986, who responded with Operation Prairie Fire, sinking Waheed with two Harpoons and MK 20 Rockeye cluster bombs from A-6E Intruders of VAs-34 and 85, the first operational use of the missile in combat. Additional strikes sank Nanuchka II class corvette Ean Mara with a Harpoon and Rockeyes, and damaged a second corvette ...

Jmturner (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Weapons used

From the audio recording from the incident, i is very clear that the first Flogger is downed by an AIM-7M Sparrow missile just prior to the merge. The missile is the second AIM-7M that is fired (brevity code: "fox one") at 10 NMi range by the lead F-14. After the first Flogger is killed, two AIM-9 Sidewinders are fired (brevity code: "fox two"), the second one hits the other Flogger. The article states that three Sparrows and one Sidewinder is fired, but that the first two Sparrows fail to track the target. I believe that this should be changed, as the dialogue has two "fox one"'s and two "fox two"'s. 90.184.31.245 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons AND Aircraft kills backwards

In addition to the above comment, I think the article also incorrectly ascribes credit for the second kill to the flight leader. After rewatching the video (the official video) and listening to the recordings separately, it's pretty clear that not only is the above author correct (the "fox-2" sidewinder is not fired until AFTER the first "good kill"), but the only voices heard to announce a "fox-2" (sidewinder fire) come from the wingman aircrew. I think the article should be adjusted accordingly. Barring that, has anyone had a look at the official navy report on the incident? TheSwordandScales (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Who did what

The descriptions of shots and misses/hits comes from the Time report:

• "the lead Tomcat pilot ... At 14 miles separation, he barked, "Fox 1. Fox 1." ... The lead Tomcat launched another Sparrow at ten miles. Both missiles missed. ... The F-14 on the wing delivered a Sparrow, which hit one of the Libyan planes. "Good kill! Good kill!" shouted one of the Americans. The lead Tomcat closed on the remaining Flogger. At a mere 1.5 miles from the MiG -- a deadly distance in modern combat -- its RIO squeezed his Sidewinder trigger. The heat-seeking missile smashed into the Flogger. "Good kill!" cried a crewman".

The F-14 tomcat in combat site[1] describes it like this:

• "The crew of the lead F-14A, AC202 fired an unsuccessful AIM-7 Sparrow missile, while the second F-14As, AC207 AIM-7 found its target and destroyed one MiG-23. Thereafter, the lead F-14 closed in on the remaining MiG-23 and launched an AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seaking missile. The missile exploded in the tailpipe of the fleeing Flogger"

And here's the summary of the audio, my interpretation in italics brackets:

• "Fox-1, fox-1 (first shot) ... fox-1 again (second shot) ... lockin him up ... tally-2, tally-2 (visual contact with two aircraft) ... OK he's got a missile lock (lock by wingman) ... good hit on one (from a shot following the lock) ... fox-2, fox-2 ... good kill, good kill".

And that's three Sparrows and a Sidewinder, Sparrow from wingman scoring first, then Sidewinder from lead. The catch is that while consistent with Time, this assumes that there's either no fox-2 call for the Sparrow that hit or that it's masked by other audio saying he's got a missile lock. I don't know the source for the non-Time site and this leaves Time and audio not inconsistent with it as the best available description. Until we get some better source, which would be really nice. Jamesday (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Jamesday for the above work. I can see how it's certainly possible that a third "Fox-1" call was either "stepped-on" by another radio transmission, or the aircrew simply failed to make one in the heat of combat. However, I think the inconsistency about who's firing sidewinder's remains. James, from your own audio transcript analysis, the voice that announces the "Fox-2" sidewinder launch is same voice that announces the first two "Fox-1" sparrow launches. (Fox 1! Fox 1! ...Fox 1 again!). Any thoughts on a possible resolution here? TheSwordandScales (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Several historians have published pretty detailed accounts of the incident, as well as the 1981 U.S./Libya air-to-air engagement. There is a monograph and a book published by a U.S. Navy historian that clearly documents this incident. The book is called "El Dorado Canyon: Reagan's Undeclared War with Qaddafi" published in 2003. I will see if I can dig it up, but the gist of the engagement is as follows: the lead F-14 fires two Sparrows that fail to guide; the Floggers evade and follow the F-14 wingman after the F-14s split; the F-14 wingman fires a Sparrow which downs one of the Floggers; meanwhile the lead F-14 positioned itself behind the remaining Flogger and fires a Sidewinder at it which downs it. I will find the book so I can properly cite.

Also, the 1989 US/Libya air to air engagement did not occur over the Gulf of Sidra. If I recall correctly, the USS JFK was steaming east, 150 miles north of the city of Tobruk which is in the northeast corner of Libya, far from the disputed Gulf of Sidra. The aerial engagement happened somewhere in between. So the title of this article probably needs to be changed.Agsftw (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Claims of victory

This was an incident not a battle or a war, the US didn't win it, it merely happened. The result of the incident was an increase in tension between the two nations, and probably had an effect on "In December 1981, the State Department invalidated U.S. passports for travel to Libya and, for purposes of safety, advised all U.S. citizens in Libya to leave."-from Libya – United States relations. Passionless -Talk 08:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To say the US won it would be like saying North Korea won the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong or that Israel won the USS Liberty incident. Passionless -Talk 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. It can be called a battle. In this case it is a battle of encounter (or encounter battle) which is "a meeting engagement where the opposing sides collide in the field without either having prepared their attack or defence" (you can Wikipedia it). The U.S. had been using the U.S. military to fight a limited war with Libya throughout the entire 1980s, deploying the 6th Fleet to intentionally challenge Libyan forces in the Gulf of Sidra and at one point deploying 8 x F-15s and 2 x AWACS to bases in the Sudan in support of Chad after the Libyan military offensive against the country. Operation Prairie Fire was designed to provoke the Libyans into attacking the U.S. fleet so that the U.S. could hit a bunch of Libyan targets. Libya took the initiative in 1989 by engaging the fleet when it was pretty far away from any disputed area. Two Libyan fighters challenged two U.S. fighters. The U.S. fighters downed the Libyan fighters. It was a U.S. victory. And it didn't just "merely happen."Agsftw (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Libyans may have planned for this engagement which several historians have noted. I'll dig up a couple references soon. You don't just send two fighters screaming at 500 knots at a battle group that's 150 miles off the edge of your coastline and heading away from your territory.Agsftw (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Such action is actually far more common than you realize. This was standard procedure during the Cold War, on both sides. The only difference is that the Americans didn't fire on the Soviets and vice versa. The attack on these Libyan aircraft was either a sign of a gung ho jingoism (i.e. out of control military), or a deliberate attack on Libya in order to send a message. It was certainly not planned by Libya.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't say that for sure. Intel analysts believed that some of Libya's forces operated under the direct authority of Gaddafi, such as the SA-5 battery that fired on US aircraft in March of 1986. So it's not hard to imagine that Libyan aircraft might have had orders, very high in the decision chain, to engage U.S. aircraft. Some historians have considered that possibility. And I know fighter intercepts happened (and still happen) all the time. But, flying "hot aspect" is enough to indicate hostile intent by ROE these days (and ROE during the time of this incident). Establishing an offset like the Americans attempted demonstrated a less hostile profile/standard intercept and attempts to position for an escort. Multiply the hot aspect (ideal forward missile release position) by six, as in this incident, and hostile intent can be easily justified. Add to that the high tensions between the U.S. and Libya over construction of a chemical weapons plant in Libya at the time. Even after the Americans fired and missed the first two times, the Libyans continued to pursue one of the US fighters after they split. In this case, I think it can be easily argued that the Libyans were the ones acting overly aggressive and provocative. This did not occur over the disputed Gulf of Sidra and the Libyans pursued the US fleet as it was moving away from the country. So I'd say US behavior in this incident was not out of control at all.76.84.161.186 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture ought to be removed from article

The image File:MiG23 Kill.jpg is unintelligible and ought to be removed from the article. — O'Dea (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is who?

I have a some question. This video(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkgjW_DXtc) says, both of migs were shootdown by wingman(he have shot both aim9 sidewinder & aim7 sparrow). but in text(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989)), one of migs were shootdown by lead f14. and shows lead f14 is 207.("Identifications of the Tomcats vary and the narrative above used the details from Air Aces.[2] However, another source identifies the wingman as AC202 rather than AC204.[3] Both agree on AC207 as the lead.") and another source(http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/combat.htm) shows lead f14 was 202. and in the other source(transcript)(http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-46026.html), there is no 202. it shows lead f14 is 204(who have fired aim-9) and I have old pc game called 'fleet defender' and in the game cd, it has another transcript of this engagement.(http://www.mobygames.com/game/win3x/f-14-fleet-defender-gold/screenshots/gameShotId,410637/) and in this transcript, f14's callsign is not 'gypsy 207'. it says, 'gypsy' is callsign of e-2c. I don't know what is correct information. thanks for reading and sorry for my english grammer, I'm korean.119.206.185.117 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Title Change

This engagement did not occur over the Gulf of Sidra. It occurred north of the city of Tobruk in the northeast corner of Libya as the USS John F. Kennedy was heading east for a port of call in Israel. The title should be changed. I will find proper references. More to come.Agsftw (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been about two years without any response so I'll go ahead with the title change. All but one of the reliable sources I have that describe the incident do not say that it occurred over the Gulf of Sidra. The book titled Debrief: a complete history of U.S. aerial engagements 1981 to the present does state that the incident occurred over the Gulf of Sidra, but the author admits to using more limited sources of information for his description of the engagement. The other sources, two books written by scholars in international relations/history (Ronald Bruce St. John and Joseph T. Stanik) and one book by a US Navy Rear Admiral that commanded a fleet fighter squadron, a carrier air wing and the U.S. Navy's Pacific fighter wing (Paul T. Gillcrist), all state that the incident occurred over waters near the northeastern corner of Libya. Stanik's book, which also gives one of the more detailed account of the engagement, explicitly states that it occurred over waters outside of the Gulf of Sidra. Will rename it U.S.-Libya Shootdown Incident (1989). Agsftw (talk)Agsftw —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been another four years, I think I will go ahead and change the title now. I think 6 years is a fair amount of time to wait for any objections to changing the article name. I will change it to "1989 Air Battle Near Tobruk" the two pairs of planes confronted each other over waters near Tobruk, Libya. It's also what historian Joseph T. Stanik calls it in his book about U.S.-Libya military confrontations. Agsftw (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's referred to as the 2nd Gulf of Sidra incident in literature, regardless of where it actually was. Ksgh84 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Those weren't AA-7...

The image taken by TCS shows cleary a much smaller missile than the AA-7 Aphex. It's easy to disting them. The MiG-23 should had an AA-2 or perhaps, a AA-8. There is no way that that missile was a AA-7. More so, if the AA-7 was carried, then the MiG could shoot to the Tomcats as the range was so short to do it. I even compared those missiles and they cannot match one vs each other, no way that it was an AA-7, that would had also reach the belly of the aircraft, while the AA-2 would, roughly, reach only the middle fuselage height, as it is depicted in the picture. I wonder why nobody noticed the clear differences between them, even if the AA-7 is very much bigger than the Atoll and the picture shows cleary that it was NOT that big at all (the missile's fins reached only the middle fuselage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ROE

This sentence is somewhat questionable, despite the references given:

"The air warfare commander on the Kennedy gave the American air crews the authority to fire if they believed the MiG-23s were hostile."

The commander on the Kennedy says "Warning yellow - weapons hold." This is not actually an authority to fire. It is a directive that it is a potentially dangerous situation but to hold fire. It is not a clear authority to fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyMfC3M0fZQ

Flanker235 (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)