Anyone started using the Mirage as their go to SEAD fighter?

[jojo]

10 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

Sure, I guess I should have been more specific in what I meant: they were not especially well EQUIPED compared to say Western or Soviet 1991 levels. Either in terms of equipment quality, or equipment numbers. I wasn't really considering training level, and I should have been more specific. 

 

Another thing to consider, is that what some people assume from conventional wisdom isn't always correct. Sure, they were considered by many to be "well trained" due to the Iran Iraq war... and yet, in the wake of Desert Storm we discovered that... well, they really weren't that well trained after all. Don't get me wrong, they were far from the worst, but also far from the best. And that brings up a point: while you might think that 10 years of war would make for a razor honed fighting force, that can sometimes happen for some troops and units, but it can also bring huge burnout, demoralized troops, it can kill training budgets ( consider this is Iraq for a decade's worth of conflict, not the Pentagon with more money the world has ever seen), the really gunho troops often get killed or hospitalised, and then your instructors may just be burned out, suffering from PTSD.  Yes, combat experience is an asset, but it can often be offset by the many negatives that also result from experiencing combat.

 

And then the equipment numbers: at the start of that conflict with Iran, they may have had a decent number of Shilkas and other anti-aircraft... but over time in combat, the losses to accidents and repairs, combat actions... can turn into an attrition that's not easily replaced. Again, this is Iraq during sustained warlike footing, not the Pacific Fleet that will replenish in months or a year. Their economy being limited, is then further hobbled by the war, and the threat of anti-ship weapons against revenue-generators like oil tankers that might pickup at Basra but now refuse to arrive.

 

Sure, the low-level tactic was doctrine in the RAF through the 1980's and to 1991. But the USAF in that same war opted to be over 16k AGL, even overflying Baghdad, right from day one. They had a different doctrine. Surely the USAF and RAF were aware of the different tactics. Neither tactic was "wrong", they were correct for different reasons. But in war and tactics, things change, and sometimes such changes result in a particular tactic becoming obsolete for a while, only to return maybe 25 years later.  And yet, A-10's still use low level, along with the ability to do higher altitude tactics as well. 

 

 

There what we know today, and the point of view back then.

Sure, in 1991 Iraqi Army was worn out and a shadow of what it was in early 1980'...
But that wasn't that obvious in 1991.

The late Mirage F1 EQ5 were very few, but very effective striker with laser guided bombs and missiles, AM39 capacity, BAZ-AR SEAD missiles, offensive jamming...

So for AG it was better equipped than USAF F-16 of the time, and for AA Super 530F was still better than only Fox 2.

 

I think that considering the size and equipment of the coalition they had to face, training level wouldn't have made much of a difference.
At the beginning of the war, the Air Defense was still very high, USAF did try a medium to high altitude raid with SEAD escort, and it was mostly ineffective with the weapons available at the time.
https://youtu.be/H8InuaTRKnY

 

So back then, the RAF did attack air bases the way they knew, and the way the Tornado was designed to do it. 

Back to the subject: using Mirage 2000C to put bombs on SAMs...Israeli tried that against Egyptian SAM, they suffered pretty high casualties in that mission.
If it does work, this is just because there isn't enough ground troops around the SAM. The French Jaguar A raid on Al Jaber gives a taste of what it is to overfly ground troops at very low level: 4 out of 12 damaged, including one who made it back but was deemed destroyed. 1 pilot was almost knocked out by taking a 7.62x39mm round in the helmet.
Low level is dangerous. In current DCS World we pay performance taxes for each unit. So there isn't enough on the ground.

 

[arnokm]

There was an interesting doc on France5 yesterday considering the Iran / Irak conflict and the role of France in this conflict:

https://www.france.tv/france-5/irak-destruction-d-une-nation/irak-destruction-d-une-nation-saison-1/2218803-episode-1-l-allie.html

See at 31'16 for Dassault Super Etendard.

Sorry it's in french...

[GGTharos]

On 1/28/2021 at 8:03 AM, DmitriKozlowsky said:

With respect I beg to differ. Terrain masking is,

 With respect, I said nothing about terrain masking.   I'm talking about low altitude flight in LOS.

[QuiGon]

15 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 With respect, I said nothing about terrain masking.   I'm talking about low altitude flight in LOS.

 

Well, that's probably never a good idea. Staying away from LOS is THE reason for low level flying and terrain masking, especially since look down radars are a thing.

[GGTharos]

I'm talking about DCS problems with SAMs when there's a target in LOS but at low altitude.  You don't exactly get the option of terrain masking over the sea for example.

[arnokm]

LOS at low altitude:

http://www.tscm.com/rdr-hori.pdf

 

[GGTharos]

Not sure what you're all trying to get at, the problem statement is clear, as in LOS exists.  There's no debate about radar antenna height or anything, the conditions are such that there is LOS to the aircraft while it's at low altitude.

 

No one's asking 'is there LOS', 'under what conditions can you have LOS', because that's not the issue here.

Edited February 4, 2021 by GGTharos