Fixes for the iraqi OOB

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

150 Su-7BMK - earliest date of delivery found in Internet is 1968 (now 1/67), however according to a Polish monograph article on Su-7 [nTW 2/1997], first were delivered in 1972. It could carry 4 x500 kg bombs (now 4x250 kg). Better icon is 2158 - Iraqi Su-7 wore a camouflage (pictures http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/a/271/19/0 )

Perhaps it could carry that much but 4 x 250 is more sensible, as there is question of under what loadout configuration and operational range such 4 x 500 load was possible. If they had to give up the underbelly fuel tanks then it was a non start for most practical applications. Were the outer wing hardpoints rated for 500kg bombs? I vaguely recall this not being the case but I will have to check.

152 Su-17MK-4 - should be named Su-22M4 (export version of Soviet Su-17M4). In addition to guided missiles, it can carry 2-4 bombs 250 kg.

As far as I have read bombs were probably not carried together with Kh-29. The actual load was something like one kh-29, an ECM pod, a drop tank and UB-32 rocket pod used as counterweight of sort.

156 Su-22M-4 - now available from 1/74 - it should be in fact earlier model Su-22M (production of Su-22M-4 started in 1983). I don't know when Iraq received Su-22M, but they were produced and exported from 1979, so 1/79 should be earliest date. In addition to missiles it could carry eg. 2x250kg bombs

Same as above except that the missile in question was used operationally very few times, perhaps just once.

Iraq could also use Su-22M with 1 Kh-28 ARM (weapon #209 in Russian oob), used from some 1984 to some 1997.

This would in fact be the most correct decision as the Kh-28 was pretty much the only ARM used by the iraqi air force for dedicated SEAD missions, even if some others types were on stock. It is however a bit more complicated than that, because of the shortage of weapon slots. I would suggest something along the lines of this:

1) Weapon n. 217 ARMAT ARM overwritten with weapon n. 216 Kh-28 ARM from Russian OOB

2) Unit 167 MIrage F-1EQ overwritten with a clone of unit 156 SU-22M-4 suitably reclassed as class 214 SEAD Aircraft and armed with one Kh-28. It could be renamed SU-22M3 and have vision reduced to zero.

3)Formation 139 SEAD Plane
To be deleted as it currently uses a F-16 armed ARMAT.
The US has been willing to sell Iraq only a fairly limited range of air to ground ordnance: only Maverick missiles, Paveway LGBs, Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs have been offered/sold. It is a good bet that SEAD weapons are not probably going to be in the cards before 2020

Formation n. 138 is available from 1/1979 to 4/2003. This might warrant some tweaking in the future but it should be good enough for the time being, unless someone has better info.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Marcello

Perhaps it could carry that much but 4 x 250 is more sensible, as there is question of under what loadout configuration and operational range such 4 x 500 load was possible. If they had to give up the underbelly fuel tanks then it was a non start for most practical applications. Were the outer wing hardpoints rated for 500kg bombs? I vaguely recall this not being the case but I will have to check.

If you want to treat the plane as if it had underbelly fuel tanks, than you're right - outer hardpoints for 6-hardpoint variant could carry 250 kg or so (that would make maximum 2x500 kg and 2x250kg). However, since the aircraft are little effective, they could carry bigger load possible IMHO.

Originally Posted by Marcello

As far as I have read bombs were probably not carried together with Kh-29. The actual load was something like one kh-29, an ECM pod, a drop tank and UB-32 rocket pod used as counterweight of sort.

Official Polish chart allows for a configuration 2x Kh-29 and 4 bombs 250-500 kg or 2 bombs and 2 drop tanks.

Originally Posted by Marcello

Same as above except that the missile in question was used operationally very few times, perhaps just once.

These missiles (Kh-23) were even lighter, than Kh-29. I don't know however what the practice of arranging armament of Su-22 in Iraq looked like. I only write, that these planes were capable of such load (even not a maximum one) and it's a bit waste to send them with only two missiles. Besides, I probably keep in mind photos of Polish Su-22s carrying missiles and rocket launchers or bombs.

Regards,

Michal

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

If you want to treat the plane as if it had underbelly fuel tanks, than you're right - outer hardpoints for 6-hardpoint variant could carry 250 kg or so (that would make maximum 2x500 kg and 2x250kg). However, since the aircraft are little effective, they could carry bigger load possible IMHO.

That's the reasonthey switched to the Su-17. Actually more often than not aircraft of this vintage (Mig-21/Su-7) would go in combat with a couple of UB-16 rocket pods, which were as effective in reality as they are in the game: very little.
Many of the comments I found about the 57mm rockets could not be reported in polite company. Yet they were used for lack of anything better.

Official Polish chart allows for a configuration 2x Kh-29 and 4 bombs 250-500 kg or 2 bombs and 2 drop tanks

Actually iraqi configuration was as follows:



Depiction of Su-22 armed with Kh-28 can be founf here but no mention of initial availability date:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_208.shtml

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Marcello

Actually iraqi configuration was as follows:

Marcello..... If you have the info PLEASE just provide it and do not make me hunt for it becasue I do not have he time to spare and if you think I can see what it's supposed to be from that illustration, your wrong.

That said it *appears* to indicate ( for game purposes ) one ARM and one UB-32 pod

Don

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by DRG

That said it *appears* to indicate ( for game purposes ) one ARM and one UB-32 pod
Don

Sorry, what the picture shows is the Su-22 configuration when carrying a Kh-29 I was describing earlier: one kh-29, an ECM pod, a drop tank and a UB-32 rocket pod used as counterweight.

The typical configuration when carrying a Kh-28 was a single Kh-28 missile and a targeting pod as depicted in the following drawing.

[Pibwl]

Sorry for confusing weapon slots of Kh-28.

Originally Posted by Marcello

what the picture shows is the Su-22 configuration when carrying a Kh-29 I was describing earlier: one kh-29, an ECM pod, a drop tank and a UB-32 rocket pod used as counterweight.

Actually, two Kh-29 could be carried in such configuration (one would cause problems with counterweight anyway), and this is what unit #152 has now. Four bombs could be additionally carried provided there are no ECM nor drop tanks. With such assumptions, there should be no additional weapons indeed.

Michal

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Marcello

Formation n. 138 is available from 1/1979 to 4/2003. This might warrant some tweaking in the future but it should be good enough for the time being, unless someone has better info.

No, it's not "good enough" becasue as Michal wrote...

Iraq could also use Su-22M with 1 Kh-28 ARM .........used from some 1984 to some 1997.

Given there is only one SEAD aircraft left in the Iraqi OOB after you had me delete or overwrite the rest and it runs 1984 - 1997 then the formation needs to run that as well unless you know of other aircraft the Iraqi used as SEAD that fills the existing formation start and end dates, otherwise that formation has been changed to match the "SU-22M3" 1/84-12/97 unless you have info that the missile was in Iraqi hands to match those previous dates


Don

[Marcello]

IS it the Kh-28 ARM from Russian Weapon slot #216 than needs to go into the Iraqi OOB

Yes or No ?

Yes, the Kh-28 was the ARM of choice

Given there is only one SEAD aircraft left in the Iraqi OOB after you had me delete or overwrite the rest and it runs 1984 - 1997 then the formation needs to run that as well unless you know of other aircraft the Iraqi used as SEAD that fills the existing formation start and end dates, otherwise that formation has been changed to match the "SU-22M3" 1/84-12/97 unless you have info that the missile was in Iraqi hands to match those previous dates

I was not planning to raise this issue for this patch as in fact I am not entirely sure about initial availability date. 1984 does not sound too bad but it might have been earlier, like 1982-1983. SIPRI for example lists 1983 for delivery. I have read claims on forums about it being used operationally already in 1982. Hence my comment about leaving the initial formation availability date alone. I was planning to get a book on the iraqi air force which might have the answer but it isn't going to happen very soon.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Marcello

Yes, the Kh-28 was the ARM of choice

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Marcello

I was not planning to raise this issue for this patch as in fact I am not entirely sure about initial availability date. 1984 does not sound too bad but it might have been earlier, like 1982-1983. SIPRI for example lists 1983 for delivery. I have read claims on forums about it being used operationally already in 1982. Hence my comment about leaving the initial formation availability date alone. I was planning to get a book on the Iraqi air force which might have the answer but it isn't going to happen very soon.

The adjustment I've made will do for now based on the info we have on that one aircraft but what I am most interested in is when anything, be it tank, rifle or ARM missile is ready to be used operationally . Not when it was unloaded from the boat and not when it was first used in anger but when ( roughly ) it was actually issued so there will always be room for "interpretation" with that but anything within that year is close enough.

With all of this we are at the mercy of "sources" from "experts" who often conflict and if one source claims weapon X was available 1983 and another claims 1985 I'm quite happy making it 1984 but in this case there were big gaps at either end which is why I said the exisitng dates were not good enough. I cannot leave formations open ended.

Don