I believe they left before the EAP demonstrator had been built. It would have been nice if the French had stayed on-board though as Europe would be in a stronger position for export sales especially for carrier capable aircraft.Originally Posted by Gerrard
depends upon the SAM system - with something like Starstreak a chopper wouldn't have a chance.
Plenty of clips of Russian choppers in Afghanistan being hit by Stingers etc. etc.
it can usually be set to automatic but as it may fire when it's not actually your a/c targeted & therefore may draw attention to you ...The defensive suite in most aircraft is automatic, so when it picks up a missile threat, its type is identified and the appropriate counter-measure is launched (chaff/flares) almost instantly.
The Russian helicopters lacked proper ECM and IR suppression as they did not expect modern MANPADS at the time. When they did add them it severely degraded flight performance too which is not great for the whale which is the Mi24. Due to lack of money most of the Russian helicopters do not seem to have modern ECM and IR equipments still!!! At least with the newer Mi28N and Ka50 and Ka52 they have included this equipment at standard.
It was in one of the books written by a (possibly disgruntled?) USAF chappy about the F15. If you get lucky it'll crop up in the google inside book search thing.
Regarding portable SAMs, helicopters have very effective counter measures. In fact, they seem to be so effective, that the launcher can't get a lock and are sometimes found left disbanded. The defensive suite in most aircraft is automatic, so when it picks up a missile threat, its type is identified and the appropriate counter-measure is launched (chaff/flares) almost instantly. The system can be fooled though by false readings; better safe than sorry though I guess!
Mainly because it was the US/UK that sold them the system, so we knew exactly what frequencies it used and how best to counter it!
The French were originally in the Eurofighter program, but wanted a carrier capable aircraft which the other nations did not want; so they left and created their own (the Rafale, which looks quite similiar to the Typhoon). However, they did have to extend their carrier (Charles de Gaule) in order for it to work.
Iraq's air defence system was nearly entirely Soviet built with some European (French-German) equipment. Despite what Michael Moore and the grauniad would have us believe Saddam Hussain was largely armed by Donald Rumsfeld, most of its weaponary was Soviet, with most of the other either captured from Iran or supplied by germany and France (including alot of the chemicals used for its NBC weapons). They knew alot of the frequencies because of intelliegence and also electronic counter measures in the west had developed alot from experiences from the yom kippur war and vietnam. The air defence network around Baghdad was extremely heavy, far heavier than most Eastern European cities in the cold war (and needless to say far heavier than our air defence network was, never mind now).
The French left Eurofighter partially because they wanted a naval varient but also because they wanted an absurdly disproportinate amount of the workshare (they wanted as much as the UK despite a smaller planned order). france would have been better ordering the F-18 for their carriers and kept in the Eurofighter program. However not for the first time France's stubborn insistence on excessive workshare would have scuppered any chance of it working.
The stealth of the F-35 is said to have a larger radar cross section than the f-22 despite its smaller size. Plus questions of its dogfighting manoeuvrability has been called into question, although to be fair it is a multi role fighter. The main issue for the UK is that the VSTOL version has major compromises (smaller payload, fuel range), internally and therefore stealthily it carries little and the MoD to save cash are not at present planning to intergrate UK specific weapons (e.g. Meteor) so it would not carry the best weapons available and would mean the UK would have to carry duplicate weapons systems, therefore increasing costs. Although as we will be ordering about 6 at this rate and not doubt the treasury do not forcast them being used it shouldn't be a problem
since when are military ever trying to save cash?
and the only reason there were any F-15s ever shot down by a SAM was because it never went up against a desent one. People seem to forget that what saddam had was what russians left behind after their afghan war. you know old 70s stuff, compare that with natos latest updated fighters.
our boiler broke so we has no heating or hot water, this is the bloody result ^^
I agree and the Iraqi airforce was not state of the art either and had mostly 70s tech too. Pit this against the latest western tech in 1990 and it is not a surprise the Iraqis were outclassed TBH.
The same goes with the Mig29 fighter which were the newest fighters that Iraq had. The ones Iraq had were downgraded export models with radars which had modes disabled on them and a shorter acquisition range.The ECM was nowhere as good as the ones the Soviets had on their Mig29s. Also pilot training,tactics and serviceability of the aircraft were questionable too. Also the Serbian AF Mig29s were so extremely poorly maintained(and ten years out of date) that the remaining Mig29 pilots took their own government for court for negligence. It did not surprise me as they were facing modern upgraded versions of the F16 at the time! Nobody has faced a late model Mig29A or Mig29M derivative and yet many people think it is a crap fighter which it isn't.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2009 at 12:41 AM.
That's a stereotype and while true in some areas of the country others had complex, modern air defence systems. Just because they could not stand up to the combined military might of a superpower and it's allies does not mean they did not pose a significant threat to individual aircraft. Remember saddam was happy to let his own people starve and civilian infrastructure crumble to fund his military and Iraq has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world.
A small article sourced from USCENTCOM on their capabilities http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm
The Iraqis had a hard time with Iran so it is not surprising when they were faced with state of the art tech that their armed forces just collapsed. Their local versions of the T72 were totally outclassed by the modern western tanks with modern tank rounds which the Iraqis did not have and so was their air force. How can Mig25s, Mirage F1s and export quality Mig29s stand up to the then modern versions of the F15 and F16 armed with the latest versions of the AIM7 and AIM120 and the latter has an active radar too. The best BWR missiles the Iraqis had were the semi-active AA6,AA7 and Super 530 and the AIM120 was a generation ahead of any of them. Also the radars of the F15 and F16C was a generation ahead of anything Iraq had anyway and the pilots and tactics were far better too. Even the Su27s the Soviets had at the time used worse radars than the F15 in the 1980s as they were using Cassegrain array derived from the radar in the Mig23.
The best long range SAMs the Iraqis had were the SA3 and SA6 and it is most likely that both Israel(who faced the latter system in the 1970s during the Yom Kippur war) and the then newly reunified Germany(who inherited loads of ex-East German materiel) would have had enough info on the systems to develop effective countermeasures so they were luckily not as effective as they would have been. Also the F117 was a significant factor too and the AH64 attack helicopter. Both were used to take out important installations at the beginning of the war.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2009 at 01:13 AM.
it was good enough in 1991 to kill F-16s, Tornados, Jaguars, A-6s, B-52, OV-10, F-14, AC-130 & AV-8Bs let alone the others that they damaged ...
Strangely enough the 1 SAM loss of an F-15 that I can find is attributed to an SA-2 - 1 of the oldest, least manoeuvrable & in theory easily defeated SAMs ...
Oh yes, there is no doubt they could not stand up to America and friends, but there just seems to be a perception that they were backwater hicks firing ak-47's wildly into the air and you could just pootle around at 5000ft with impunity. Which is simply not the case.
A huge amount of force(I'm sure everyone remembers the video's of the Shock and Awe campaign), every ounce of our most modern technology and the lives of many young servicemen were required to overcome the Iraqi army and air defence network. Successful is not the same as easy. That is the point I'm trying to make.
However in air to air operations the only confirmed kill was of an F18 by a Mig25 IIRC. Also many of the coalition aircraft losses were at low level were AAA and short range missiles pose a threat to any airforce in any conflict(The Russians lost around 7 aircraft in their recent war with Georgia for example). At longer ranges and higher altitudes there were relatively few losses meaning the coalition had total dominance of the Iraqi airspace in a relatively short time into the war and hence the Iraqi ground forces were screwed. The coalition losses were relatively minor considering how huge the Iraqi armed forces were and how many losses they themselves sustained.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2009 at 01:55 AM.
Using steel penetrators versus Chobham armor for example ?? The 125mm guns on the Iraqi T72s were outranged and most of them had inferior imaging systems too and these were the best tanks they had too. The rest were T62s,T55s and Chinese Type 59 and Type 69 MBTs which are modified T55s. Even with direct hits the penetrators BOUNCED off the frontal armour of M1s and Challengers!!
The Iraqis had a tiny navy too.The Iraqi armed forces had huge numbers but most of the equipment was poor and so was morale. War is inherently dangerous for any member of the armed forces and any civilians caught up in the middle but don't balk at the massive techncial superiority the coalition had versus the Iraqis.
The Iranians held the Iraqis at bay for nearly a decade despite massive sanctions on them and huge purges of the best people in their armed forces by the religious lot. We lost around 200 soldiers in total for the WHOLE COALITION which is comparable with British losses in the Falklands. The Iraqis lost tens of thousands of armed forces personal during the war and almost all their materiel was destroyed.
You only have to see the "Highway of Death" to see how overwhelmed the Iraqi forces were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far more dangerous to the men and women of our armed forces then the first Gulf War in reality as the fighting tends to be much more close quarter and also due to the asymmetrical tactics the insurgents use. Hence the technological gap is somewhat nullified.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2009 at 02:19 AM.
The ones I mentioned were only SAM kills - I didn't mention the AAA kills/damages which look to be roughly on a par.
The point I am trying to make is that even in low intensity conflicts aircraft and helicopters flying at low level are very vulnerable. Look at various other conflicts in the Middle East,Asia and Africa for example. The first Gulf War was no different. However in every other way the Iraqi forces were overwhelmed in technology,tactics and training and TBH even the Iranians held them at bay even with all the sanctions and purges in their armed forces. If the latter had not happened the Iraqis would have never attacked Iran even.Most of their armed forces were conscripts too and versus professional soldiers no wonder they lacked morale. Also under the leadership of a brutal dictator and his cronies does anyone think that their military commanders had any real say?? It would not surprise me if the command heirachy was based on loyalty to Saddam rather than ability. Not very good for any armed forces TBH!! Quantity is no substitute for quality. The Chinese were so worried at the poor showing of their materiel in the first Gulf War they embarked on massive upgrade programmes for much of their military equipment especially their MBTs. The Russians also realised the same thing and this was further shown in Chechnya as their MBTs had the alarming tendency to cook off when penetrated.
Anyway this is going way off topic. Sorry OP!!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2009 at 02:18 AM.
http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media...070912-043.pdf is mildly interesting although you have to view it in light of remembering who paid for it
CAT-THE-FIFTH (21-07-2009)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
