Talk:1989 air battle near Tobruk

message: 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)
thread_title: No casualties?

message: 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)
thread_title: POV, Tone

message: 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)
thread_title:  F-14 at Reagan library 

message: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commercial Patch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weapons used 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weapons AND Aircraft kills backwards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Claims of victory

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture ought to be removed from article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who is who? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Title Change 

message: 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)
thread_title: Those weren't AA-7...

message: 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)
thread_title:  ROE