Crusaders vs. Fishbeds, Lebanon, 1983

MacCaulay

Banned
It's a little known fact (that I like to trumpet) that the American and French governments both planned counterattacks in the aftermath of the Beirut Barracks bombings that killed members of both their militaries. (yes...there were French there too.)

What is even less well known is that even though the Reagan Administration backed out for fear of "alienating the populace," the French launched a carrier-based air strike into the Bekaa Valley against Iranian Pasdaran and Hezbollah positions.

It was thought by the French at the time that the Syrian Air Force could very well attempt an interception, though the chances were considered much less than the possibility of being downed by AAA over the Valley.

So...let's suppose that a Super Etendard, on it's strike run, is hit and downed. It'd take a lot to down a big bird like that, but we're doing this for the sake of the POD. Crusaders were assigned for the French CAP, and the main air superiority fighter in the Syrian arsenal in 1983 was still the MiG-21, because the MiG-23 hadn't been brought fully into the arsenal yet and the numbers in the SyAAF had been damaged due to the air war with Israel in 1982.

So, for a brief (say...12 hours or so) period until the French CSAR helos can get the pilot out, we've got Crusaders vs. Fishbeds over the Bekaa Valley. The Aeronavale is going to go toe to toe with the SyAAF. What's the possible outcome?


Also: Who the fuck came up with "Fishbed"? Really!? NATO really dropped the ball from the 50s to the early 60s. We had "Fagot" and "Fishbed" within a decade. Sure, Fagot didn't mean what it means now, but these were the same people who brought you "Fishbed," so I'm still going to blame them.
All the other names are pretty cool, actually: Flogger, Flanker, Foxbat, Foxhound, and my personal favourite...Fulcrum. But Fishbed? Fucking really?
 
Offhand, I'd think that the advantage would probably be with the French, as I'm pretty sure that their pilots were better trained, and IIRC, F-8/MiG-21 engagements did happen a couple times during Vietnam with the Crusaders coming out on top, even though the F-8 probably won't have as much armament mounted. My guess is that if the Syrians want to win this fight, they'd have to achieve an overwhelming numerical superiority over the engagement area (how many fighters could one or both of the French carriers keep over the engagement area, and how many MiGs could the Syrians keep over the Valley, & would the Israelis get involved in this?) or set up some sort of anti-aircraft trap that works.
 
Also: Who the fuck came up with "Fishbed"? Really!? NATO really dropped the ball from the 50s to the early 60s. We had "Fagot" and "Fishbed" within a decade. Sure, Fagot didn't mean what it means now, but these were the same people who brought you "Fishbed," so I'm still going to blame them.
All the other names are pretty cool, actually: Flogger, Flanker, Foxbat, Foxhound, and my personal favourite...Fulcrum. But Fishbed? Fucking really?

Don't forget the MiG-19 "Farmer". You had a Yak called the "Flashlight" and the Su-7 "Fitter", too. I'm pretty sure the NATO namers were just flipping the bird at the USSR at that point, to be honest.

To the actual topic, as DD951 says, didn't Crusaders acquit themselves well over Vietnam (at least compared to pre-gun F-4s)? With the better weapons fit I would expect they have, they should do all right unless the Syrians get clever, lucky, or very numerous.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Offhand, I'd think that the advantage would probably be with the French, as I'm pretty sure that their pilots were better trained, and IIRC, F-8/MiG-21 engagements did happen a couple times during Vietnam with the Crusaders coming out on top, even though the F-8 probably won't have as much armament mounted.

To the actual topic, as DD951 says, didn't Crusaders acquit themselves well over Vietnam (at least compared to pre-gun F-4s)? With the better weapons fit I would expect they have, they should do all right unless the Syrians get clever, lucky, or very numerous.

An interesting thing about the French Crusaders was that instead of the Sidewinders they carried Matra Magic missiles. Carrier Warfare by Davis notes that these same Crusaders, F-8E(FN)s, also apparently engaged in some rough play with Yemeni MiG-21s, though no weapons were fired. That was the only time I can find in my books that French Crusaders and MiG-21s ever actually tangled.
But as you guys pointed out, the Last Gunfighter aquitted itself well over Vietnam and could probably have done a good job here.

One question folks could ask is: if the Syrians had a better aircraft in their inventory, why would they use the MiG-21, especially in 1982? It's a good question. Arab MiG-21 and MiG-19 Units in Combat and Phoenix over the Nile (a history of the Egyptian Air Force) both talk in at least some detail about the Arab air forces' numerous issues with the Flogger. It came at a point (post-Yom Kippur War) when Egypt was leaning towards the West, and Syria was having to become more self-sufficient. In this sufficiency campaign, the MiG-21 was simply much easier to maintain in large numbers than the new swing-wing Flogger, even though it did work well in interception missions with it's BVR missiles.
This put the MiG-21 into a natural Combat Air Patrol role well into the late-80s, until it's age pushed it out and the Floggers started to take that role as they were in turn replaced by Fulcrums.
 
Offhand, I'd think that the advantage would probably be with the French, as I'm pretty sure that their pilots were better trained, and IIRC, F-8/MiG-21 engagements did happen a couple times during Vietnam with the Crusaders coming out on top, even though the F-8 probably won't have as much armament mounted. My guess is that if the Syrians want to win this fight, they'd have to achieve an overwhelming numerical superiority over the engagement area (how many fighters could one or both of the French carriers keep over the engagement area, and how many MiGs could the Syrians keep over the Valley, & would the Israelis get involved in this?) or set up some sort of anti-aircraft trap that works.

Agreed. More so, with US carriers out there as well, I can't quite see the US not getting involved. At least throwing up a CAP at the least. At the most, conduction a fighter sweep over Lebanon with two squadrons of Tomcats ( 4 if there are two carriers on station) and turning it into another turkey shoot.
Getting back to the Crusaders, they were good birds but had short legs and could only carry sidewinders as their AAM ordnance.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Agreed. More so, with US carriers out there as well, I can't quite see the US not getting involved.

Well...they didn't.

And Reagan, for as ballsy as he was with carriers in the Gulf of Sidra, apparently felt that Hezbollah was just too big and bad for America. Which explains why he ordered the Marines out immediately on Sea Stallions while the French marched out with some freaking honour.

And if the Reagan Administration wouldn't take on Hezbollah on the ground, why would they take on the SyAAF in the air?
 

Cook

Banned
Also: Who the fuck came up with "Fishbed"? Really!? NATO really dropped the ball from the 50s to the early 60s. We had "Fagot" and "Fishbed" within a decade. Sure, Fagot didn't mean what it means now, but these were the same people who brought you "Fishbed," so I'm still going to blame them.
All the other names are pretty cool, actually: Flogger, Flanker, Foxbat, Foxhound, and my personal favourite...Fulcrum. But Fishbed? Fucking really?

Spare a thought for the poor unfortunate Air Force Intelligence Officer with a speech impediment.
 
Well...they didn't.

And Reagan, for as ballsy as he was with carriers in the Gulf of Sidra, apparently felt that Hezbollah was just too big and bad for America. Which explains why he ordered the Marines out immediately on Sea Stallions while the French marched out with some freaking honour.

And if the Reagan Administration wouldn't take on Hezbollah on the ground, why would they take on the SyAAF in the air?

I figure he left that way just because he knew the Israelis were there and would take care of business. The French had a little less confidence in the Israelis, I would imagine.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I figure he left that way just because he knew the Israelis were there and would take care of business. The French had a little less confidence in the Israelis, I would imagine.

Well, this was after the First Lebanon War had sputtered to an end. That was more or less why the forces were there in the first place.

The History of the Middle East Wars by Westwood paints a picture of an initially semi-hawkish Reagan in a "Maybe we should do...something?" mood, then Weinberger talking him out of it so they wouldn't alienate the population.

Now...the same book points out that all the targets were apparently picked out when the the US backed out of the plan. They were all in the Bekaa Valley and consisted of Hezbollah and deployed Pasdaran units that were there training them.
So my question to Weinberger would be: "Just who's opinion are you worried about alienating? Hezbollah that just suicide bombed your Marines, or the Iranian regime that took your citizens hostage 3 years earlier?"

You know me. I'll defend Republican Administrations, even when it's very unpopular on this board to do so. I've even defended Reagan alot. But this time, he dropped the ball in a big, big way. If I had to point to a time when Islamic Fundamentalism was able to start saying "The Americans will cut and run," it's Beirut in 1983.
 

Archibald

Banned
Carrier Warfare by Davis notes that these same Crusaders, F-8E(FN)s, also apparently engaged in some rough play with Yemeni MiG-21s, though no weapons were fired.

Yes ! Quite an amusing story.

In may 1977 Djiboutia become independant. Since the 60's there's a french air force squadron there - they flew Skyraiders, F-100 Super Sabres, Mirage IIIC, Mirage F1C and currently flies Mirage 2000s.

So in this day of May 1977 Aeronavale Crusaders are supposed to mock dogfight with armée de l'air F-100s based in Djiboutia.

The Crusaders finds the Sabres, tangle with them, and found something odd.
Those damn aviators have a bizarre behaviour...
In fact they are Yemenite Migs !
Nothing happens, and everyone goes home safely.

(how many fighters could one or both of the French carriers keep over the engagement area

4-8 Crusaders at best. Clems were small...

More on the French Crusader here. http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/crusader/crusader.htm
The 1977 incident is described.
 
Top