Iraq's Air Force: Key Aircraft, Weapons, and Tactics (Video Notes)

Overview

Iraq's air force was formidable with a substantial number of modern capable fighters. Specifically, 151 aircraft in the frontline, modern category.
Among these, the MiG-29 Fulcrum was the most worrisome to coalition planners due to its speed, agility, and state-of-the-art capabilities, but in combat it never delivered, losing every engagement.
Saddam was furious over the MiG-29’s failure to perform in combat.

MiG-29 Fulcrum: fast, agile, and state-of-the-art; feared by coalition, but underperformed in engagements; ultimately failed to win air-to-air encounters.
MiG-25 Foxbat: standout in the Iraqi fleet during the Gulf War operations.
First night of airstrikes: a MiG-25 shot down an American F-18 Hornet.
Later that night: another MiG-25 intercepted radar jammers, forcing them to flee and exposing a nearby F-15 to a surface-to-air missile (SAM).
In another clash scenario: two MiG-25s challenged four F-15s. Even after the F-15s fired 10 missiles, the Foxbats slipped away unharmed.
SPAM took note of the MiG-25’s performance (the transcript uses the term “SPAM” in relation to evaluating these events).

Design origin: The MiG-25 Foxbat was designed in the Soviet Union in the 1960s.
Intended role: an aging interceptor not designed to face agile dogfighters like the modern F-15.
Limitations cited in the transcript:
- Heavier airframe and reduced maneuverability compared to more agile fighters.
- Radar capability limited in certain engagements, specifically unable to track targets below the horizon.
What it did offer:
- Enormous raw power and speed; described as the fastest combat aircraft ever built.
- Armament: enormous R-40 missiles with a reported engagement range up to 80\,\text{km} (up to eighty kilometers away).
Significance: Despite its speed and heavy missiles, the MiG-25 was not well matched against modern, agile fighters like the F-15 in dogfights.

Night 1 engagements:
- A MiG-25 shot down an F-18 Hornet.
- A second MiG-25 intercepted radar jammers, forcing them to flee and exposing an F-15 to a SAM, which implies a successful interception and aggressive use of mixed-threat tactics.
Later engagement: two MiG-25s vs four F-15s
- Despite the F-15s firing 10 missiles, the Foxbats escaped unharmed, indicating either the MiG-25’s defensive maneuvers, missile limitations, or pilot skill/ambush effectiveness.

Iraqi pilots planned to ambush a combat patrol as it split off to refuel.
Ambush tactic described (as per transcript):
- Two MiG-25s would emerge from opposite directions to initiate a target-specific maneuver described as a "concerned maneuver" (note: transcription appears garbled; the intended term could be a form of pincer or cross-attack maneuver).
- The expected sequence: the initial MiG-25 would draw engagement from the F-15s, exposing a flank to the second MiG-25.
- The second MiG-25 would use its superior speed to close in and attack once the flank was exposed.
Outcome on paper: the plan is described with a term that seems garbled (e.g., "Raxiar" or similar); the transcript ends abruptly, so the complete assessment or name of the tactic is unclear from the provided material.

contrast between design intent and battlefield reality:
- The MiG-25’s raw speed and powerful missiles offered high hit possibilities at long range, but its maneuverability and radar limitations reduced effectiveness in close-quarters dogfights.
strategic takeaway: even formidable airframes can be countered by modern fighters with agility, clean engagement geometry, and superior situational awareness.
tactical takeaway: ambush or cross-attack concepts rely on opponent split operations (refuelling pauses, formation breaks) to create vulnerable moments.

Real-world relevance: showcases how even technologically advanced aircraft can be outmatched by newer air superiority fighters if not integrated with appropriate tactics, training, maintenance, and support.
Practical implications:
- The importance of maintenance, pilot training, and sortie quality in leveraging the capabilities of advanced fighters like the MiG-29.
- The risks of relying on a single platform’s strengths (e.g., speed) without robust countermeasures against agile opponents.
Ethical/philosophical implications: reflects on how misalignment between weapon capabilities and combat reality can lead to escalation of force, misallocation of resources, and strategic misjudgments in wartime planning.

Number of modern capable fighters in the Iraqi fleet: 151
Era of the MiG-25 design: 1960s
MiG-25 engagement range of its missiles: 80\,\text{km}
Engagement missile count noted in F-15 vs MiG-25 clash: 10 missiles fired by F-15s
Quantities mentioned in ambush scenario: 2 MiG-25s vs 4 F-15s

The transcript includes garbled words (e.g., "concerned maneuver", "daptered", "Raxiar") and ends mid-sentence after describing the ambush concept.
Some terms (like SPAM) are not clearly defined within the provided excerpt and may refer to a shorthand or typographical error in the source material.
Because some sections rely on context not fully provided here, treat the described engagement outcomes as narrative highlights rather than exhaustive technical assessments.

Demonstrates a recurring theme in air combat: superior speed and long-range missiles can be offset by maneuverability, radar horizon limits, and pilot tactics.
Highlights how mixed fleets (older interceptors like the MiG-25 with newer fighters like the F-15) require complementary tactics and support elements (e.g., AWACS, electronic warfare) to maximize effectiveness.
Provides a case study in evaluating aircraft performance beyond raw specs, emphasizing real-world combat outcomes and decision-making under pressure.