Talk:Gulf of Sidra incident (1981)

Could split (or spin off) a subarticle on the Line of Death, to avoid repeating background info in the 2 Gulf of Sidra incident articles. --Uncle Ed 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created "Line of Death" as a redirect to the Gulf of Sidra article - it's probably the best place for the material. I don't have any good sources to hand about the details - in particular exactly what Gaddafi said in 1973. Megapixie 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted entire (unsourced) section titled "Commercial Products" on patches which refer to a series of engagments 23-25 March 1986 (during Operation Attain Document). The text showed confusion about why fighter pilots would wear the patches and why an A-6E would be depicted on the patches. Discussion of these patches belongs in a separate article on the 23-25 March incidents. I did not find such an article. Can someone create one? However, those incidents are described in the USS America article. There have been, however, T-shirts, and possibly also patches, created and sold to commemorate the 1981 incident. The T-shirts said something like, "U. S. 2, Libya 0. Anytime, Khadafi, baby!" Similar T-shirts came out in 1989 after the January 1989 shootdown of 2 Libyan MiG-23s by U. S. F-14 Tomcats. The T-shirts updated the "score" to 4-0. Someone should add this info to the relevant articles if he has a source. Thanks! HolyT 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Is there any non-Navy support for claims that Libyan plane did fired a missile at all? It seems quite strange that only two fighters were assigned and only one missile launched, if Libyan really did wanted to attack. It's also noteworthy that Libyan planes didn't attacked first in all other known encounters with U.S. fighters. I don't like Libyans, but couldn't it be that U.S. pilots did attacked first, like in second Sidra incident, or by misinterpreting Libyan actions as missile launch? Is there any objective evidence of evaded missile? Did Libyan taken responsibility of attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.100.216 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no evidence at all that the Libyan plane fired at the American plane, as opposed to just a warning shot. Since the USA lied about the torpedo that started the Vietnam war, and the report that both pilots were safe was a known lie, it seems safest to assume that even the existence of the Libyan action was also a lie. At the very least this should state that the USA reported that the USA reported that the American pilot felt threatened. Also, there is a clear error. The rules of engagement allowed for self-defense, not retaliation, and the Libyan just posed no threat as they had turned back and could not fire even if they had wanted to. Overall, this is NOT an unbiased report of this issue. This opinion from a loyal American, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.232.88 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no bias. They had permission to "chase them right into the hangar" if they were fired upon according to the ROE at the time. The quoted text is Reagan's own words. Also, there is evidence that the Libyan plane fired, beyond the American pilots' testimonies, and I am about to update the article with proper references. You can maybe look at it from a modern infantryman's perspective: if someone fires at you and then turns around and runs, you can still kill the shooter because hostile intent has been established. Agsftw (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you're going to discredited US based sources and testimony regarding military matters, you're going to have to discredit probably 100% of the sources being used to describe most modern US military events. US sources, US government agencies and the US Navy itself were the ones that reported that the initial details of the Gulf of Tonkin attacks ("the torpedo that started the Vietnam War") were incorrect...Agsftw (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Image
I do not see the point of having a computer generated image. Why do we have it? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well to put it simply; Because we can, and the Image use policy encourages it. Anynobody 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my F14 photo. I am trying to get into the habit of taking photos of interest to the Wikipedia community when I visit places.--Dr.michael.benjamin 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though I didn't have anything to do with it, I'll say you're welcome and thanks for uploading the photo on behalf of the community. :) Anynobody 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Requirements says that image should be added with info like:
 * 2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.


 * I don't know how you can confirm correctness of airplane relative positions, their pitches, banks, AoA, paint colors, their orientation as for the beach and so on for the other things shown here.


 * Also words "Artists depiction" means "somebodys POV" or "OR". There are "Artists impression" pictures, that are made by official military or design bureau artists for presentation of new fighter model and are part of it's development process - but this self-made picture is different story.


 * My similair objection as for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Render.--Oleg Str (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My objection to the image is that it shows an F-15, not an F-14. It is not historically accurate in any way. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not agreeing with the computer generated image's accuracy either. It looks like an F-14, but the coast looks entirely too close. The engagement occured several tens of miles away from the shore. Even if they wanted to get as close as they could, US fighters were instructed not to get any closer 15 miles to the coast during the 1981 ops due to the danger of surface to air missiles (based on several of the sources listed in the reference section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 January 2012 (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  21:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This incident can be considered a battle (as I responded in the other "Gulf of Sidra incident" article, it fits this definition:encounter battle). The Libyans had fired on US aircraft before. Some sources state that the Reagan administration was anticipating the Libyans would fire again and prepared plans for military responses against Libya proportionate to whatever actions they took against the fleet (can find that info in some of the references I'm about to include in this article.) Agsftw (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This incident can be simplified like this: Libyan jets attack American jets; the American jets counterattack; the counterattack succeeds; both Libyan jets are destroyed; the Americans achieve a tactical victory.Agsftw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Audio Recording
I noticed that the audio recording and text file with the transcript is missing. I posted these several years ago on the Biddle history website. Looks like that is gone now. I would be willing to post these again if anyone knows where they can go. NESEPer (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded it to my personal website. www.intergate.com/~msasser/fitter.html 151.190.254.108 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Meet LOST Critera
There's no source for the idea that the Libyan claim to the Gulf of Sidra failed to meet the Law of the Sea Treaty criteria; the issue never went to the World Court to be judged so including a definitive statement like that is inappropriate. I've added "...since the Reagan administration declared..."


 * There are two sources that are right there, to include one by the former Secretary of the Navy. The other book by J.T. Stanik gives a much better explanation though. In 1974, the US Department of State called the claim an "unacceptable violation of international law" (Stanik p.28). You can also find information regarding this in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Press Center link (the first one in the reference section) where it mentions the formal rejection by the US of the Libyan claim in 1974 due to the 24 mile internal bay limit based on international law (the 24 mile limit is spelled out in the 1958 Law of the Sea treaty).


 * And Reagan wasn't president in the 1970s. There were three FON exercises from 1973-1979, before Reagan was president.


 * If you want to make remarks about US refusals to sign the treaty, I think the best place to do it would be in an "aftermath" or "summary" section.Agsftw (talk)


 * I've changed the wording to better indicate that the US acted unilaterally for the most part.Agsftw (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Gulf of Sidra incident (1981). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060212192336/http://www.ussbiddle.org:80/history/fitter_engagement_audio.html to http://www.ussbiddle.org/history/fitter_engagement_audio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060823133218/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_356.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_356.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unintentional firing
As the AA-2 cannot be launched head-on, and surely NOT from 300 meters away (it would have not time to correct the trajectory, it's simply impossible) it is rated (as example, in the war machine encyclopedia, 1983), that that missile was unintentionally fired given the tension of the day. It's not that strange, in the past there were several even FRIENDLY missile firings: only the Sidewinders were fired atleast in 3 occasions, resulting in: 1)- a B-52 shot down by a F-100; 2) an RF-4C shot down by a F-14  3) a F-15 damaged by another F-15.

If the Su-22 would have really fight the F-14 head-on, they could have fired the NR-30, in a head-on range the firing range would have been over 1 km away. No need to fire an unrealiable missile, in a very short range firing in which none of the AAM available even today could work (1000 ft in a head-on attack!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * FoxTwo.png