Lessons from the 80s

[Maior]

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap13.pdf

 

This is an interesting read on the Air part of the Iran-Iraq war raging from 1980 to 1988. The lessons taken from this war in terms of air combat are considered important by many and still studied. This is probably the sole example of an air war where one side's strength was not overwhelming. Sure Iraq had more planes in the end but for most operations it was pretty even. This is a period when lots of information are becoming available every day and is the era that will shine in DCS in the future. Enjoy the read.

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks for the link and the interesting read, I found the info about the SAM networks of both countries an interesting read particularly. The technology and strategies and capabilities are such a far cry even from what some of us were used to in the 1991 war when a superpower was involved.

[Maior]

Thanks for the link and the interesting read, I found the info about the SAM networks of both countries an interesting read particularly. The technology and strategies and capabilities are such a far cry even from what some of us were used to in the 1991 war when a superpower was involved.

 

Yeah. One of the things this document keeps reiterating is that there was a lack of thecnological understanding on how to operate efficiently with air defence. Both countries went to a more close range point defence system since it was easier to coordinate since it involved fewer "parts". The lack of effectiveness using long range systems effectively both technically and in doctrine, meant that when the US led coalition attacked in 1991, the Iraq air defence network was no match for an organised assault since short and midrange weapons are not much of a threat to F-15E, F-16 and F-18s dropping presents on you from far, far away. If you compare it to the way the Serbs handled themselves... It's like the day and the night. And the Serbs didn't have top notch equipment. Their doctrine was up to date however and they knew better than to leave their air search RADARS on forever so that everyone could see them. Saw some statistics the other day, the coalition in Serbia managed to destroy less than 100 vehicles in total. Pretty impressive for such a small country.

[Invader ZIM]

I was surprised that the Iraqi and Iranian systems were optimized for engagement of aircraft at 5,000 feet minimum, and higher. I don't know all the upgrades and detailes of the SAM network that might have led up to the 1991 war, as well as the combined stealth F-117, low altitude Apache's and God knows what else pummeling of the IADS network and the severely detrimental effect that they had on the Iraqi coordination of the systems.

 

It certainly is a different world regarding their network vs. other countries at the time, and an interesting read for sure.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Maior]

I was surprised that the Iraqi and Iranian systems were optimized for engagement of aircraft at 5,000 feet minimum, and higher. I don't know all the upgrades and detailes of the SAM network that might have led up to the 1991 war, as well as the combined stealth F-117, low altitude Apache's and God knows what else pummeling of the IADS network and the severely detrimental effect that they had on the Iraqi coordination of the systems.

 

It certainly is a different world regarding their network vs. other countries at the time, and an interesting read for sure.

 

Well, they were and they weren't. The problem was that the Iraqui and Iranian doctrines were not up to date in regards to aerial defence. The acquisition of long range high altitude systems was discontinued throughout the war and more focus on weapons that could provide a dual role as anti-air/anti-personnel was pursued for different reasons. One, they were easier to operate and they could form some kind grid without much trouble requiring little integration, two, gun based platforms could serve a role against ground troops and they were used extensively in this fashion. Especially since 23mm and 40mm cannons could be placed outside rocket artillery range being to suppress attack attempts. Again, pin point defence with no strategic linking due to a lack of technical know-how and a far too centralised system.

 

One technical aspect that was outdated was the lack of spotting/listening stations. Their RADAR was always on trying to search for intruders which painted a very nice target for any ARM system. Plus, their long range high altitude defence was actually stationary. Compare it to the Serbian platforms which were mobile and had a 12sec max "on" window.

Then, they were disconnected and moved to another location so that it could be used as a listening post and/or active post. The Serbians equipment was not superior technologically to the Iraqi one, it was just used with a more updated doctrine.

 

So, in the end, their point defence systems acted like islands in a see of darkness in which simple procedures as communication between outposts was not even effective let alone any kind of data linking system. From my reading of the article, I got the impression that the Iran Iraq war was detrimental to Iraq on short term since in their experience, point defence was what kept aircraft at bay. Obviously because neither country had any form of airspace control. Iran was a bit better and used their F-14s as mini AWACS and that gave them more awareness. This made them a bit more flexible. Iraq's airforce on the other hand was so rigid a structure that their aircraft had perfectly lined uncovered Iranian aircraft and instead of taking them out, they tried to bomb the runways. Huge blunder but, you don't want to be the one to tell Saddam that you acted without his consent.

 

This is fun :)

[Invader ZIM]

This is fun

 

Lol, I agree, thanks for the clarification on the respective countries doctrine.

[Maior]

Lol, I agree, thanks for the clarification on the respective countries doctrine.

 

It's nice to have a conversation on these topics with feedback in them. It's a refreshing change from the roll-eyes "what does it matter? And who cares" look. ^^

 

As I keep reading this document I appreciate more and more the necessity of a modern, capable, teaching system. The troubles the arms suppliers have to teach low education countries to operate certain systems... It's staggering. the problem is not the normal functioning and routine maintenance. The Main problem is when things fail, sometimes easy solvable things, and they do not know how to put the equipment back in shape. I'm betting computer systems were the most troublesome. In a way, it makes me appreciate my degree in a technological area more.

 

EDIT: During the colonial wars, Portugal had the opposite trouble. There was one RADAR battery in which the operators felt the war was stupid and they had better things to do. it's main operators were recent graduates in engineering btw. Well, they found a way to short-circuit the system so that a fuse needed to be replaced. A fuse for which they had to submit an order to HQ for them to receive the fuse. Whole operation took around two weeks. After two weeks, they'd repeat the process :D

Well educated people ^^

Edited March 1, 2013 by Maior

[Invader ZIM]

I know what you mean about the education system setup for military hardware, lol that illustration of the Portugese engineers and their Radar system is pretty good, but not the only example I've seen lol. My Associates in Electrical Engineering only partially messed me up in the head in that regard :thumbup: My specialty is in Electro-Optical systems, image intensified and thermal specifically.

 

We got systems back from the field that had a very easy fix, that could have been done in the field but in order for the field units to take advantage of the warranty it had to be crated up and shipped back to us. There were other times we came across emergency field repairs and sort of were gobsmacked at what was done just to keep the system viable in the field until it could be shipped back to us. Can't give more details other than it was a gun based anti-aircraft and anti-ordinance system.

 

 

Also in the article above:

 

Even in 1988, however, it was clear

that Iraq was unable to keep its SA-2 and SA-3 missile defenses on continuous alert without

burning out some of its electronics and seriously degrading the operational capabilities of its

missiles.

 

Most people get the idea that you can just set up and turn on a SAM system and leave it on all the time, a sort of easy button for finding an aircraft, but the illustration above sort of highlights that not only can such systems not be turned on indefinately in a ready state, there's the real threat of Anti-radiation missiles homing on said systems set up like that.

 

And the larger the system, say like an S-300 or S-400 battery, the less mobile they tend to be, requiring all sorts of extra defensive efforts to protect them from attack, as well as running into an enemy that may not give them the ability to scan the skies for very long without fear of attack.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Maior]

Well, the S-400 is supposed to get AESA RADAR to it's targeting system iirc. This will reduce the power output needed greatly reducing heat generation preserving the electronics. Also, those batteries are probably more mobile than what Iraq had.

Like I said earlier, the Serbs had 12 second limit for each radar to be on. Couple that with actual information transfer and you got a very effective system even with old technology.

It's amazing what good doctrine allows you.

 

Well, I only work on the civil aspect of surveying systems, and let me tell you, I'm guilty of some "sabotage" (fixable things that I don't want to do) myself... But that's mainly due to the fact that sometimes, people feel that just because they bought a 20,000€ camera it's going to be of any use. Sigh...

[Invader ZIM]

This will reduce the power output needed greatly reducing heat generation preserving the electronics. Also, those batteries are probably more mobile than what Iraq had.

 

Like I said earlier, the Serbs had 12 second limit for each radar to be on. Couple that with actual information transfer and you got a very effective system even with old technology.

It's amazing what good doctrine allows you.

 

Yea, agreed on both counts, couple the advancements of the latest generation SAM units and IADS networks and throw in good doctrine and it can be a very scary situation for the opposing force. :)

 

sometimes, people feel that just because they bought a 20,000€ camera it's going to be of any use.

 

Been there and done that lol, you don't know how many times that happens, everywhere!!

Edited March 1, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Maior]

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R3000.pdf

 

More news from the 80s (rather old news :p). This document encompasses the lessons Russia was able to extract from the Lebanon war. Including:

 

The importance of CAP and the greater flexibility they can afford.

The vulnerability of airborne command posts to enemy fighters and SAM batteries.

The value of communications and jamming in destroying enemy troops SA.

The ability of fighters with large radars to work as AWACS.

The diminished reliability of RADAR control (I assume they mean ground based) in controlling fighters as the depth of air ops into enemy territory increases.

 

Having just begun reading it, it looks promising. Even though the publisher warns that this has some misinterpretations.

The first problem appears to be, again, lack of effective doctrine even though the technology was quite recent.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Maior

[Eihort]

This report is based on heavily out of date information. The sabotage of the F-14s and their Phoenix missiles did not have nearly as much of an impact on their operations it states.

 

This is a much better read, and was released after this report was written:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Iranian-Tomcat-Units-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841767875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362451129&sr=1-1&keywords=Osprey+Iranian+F-14

 

I found the picture of a Hawk SAM mounted on an F-14 rather interesting.

[Maior]

This report is based on heavily out of date information. The sabotage of the F-14s and their Phoenix missiles did not have nearly as much of an impact on their operations it states.

 

This is a much better read, and was released after this report was written:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Iranian-Tomcat-Units-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841767875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362451129&sr=1-1&keywords=Osprey+Iranian+F-14

 

I found the picture of a Hawk SAM mounted on an F-14 rather interesting.

 

Care to expand on it a bit more? All they said about the Iranian F-14s was that they could not operate the phoenix missiles due to sabotage. Are you saying they did fire a Phoenix? That'd be interesting.

[159th_Viper]

Are you saying they did fire a Phoenix? That'd be interesting.

 

60+ confirmed kills, including 3 Mig-23's with one missile.

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml

Edited March 5, 2013 by 159th_Viper

[Maior]

hmmm... The Iran-Iraq article I posted is from the same year as the book you supplied. I wonder what kind of different info they had access to.

Which sources does the website you posted use?

Well, it's a minor deal in the article I posted. The article in question is much more focused on doctrine, operational capacity and problems faced by third world countries with tech transfers.

 

EDIT: Read the preview on the book Eihort advised (added to my to buy list) and I think that since the article I posted is American in origin, many of it's info on the F-14 falls into what the Americans were sold (as in, Iranian jets were worse) and a lot comes from that. Lack of spares was and still is an issue however. Thank you for this recommendation Eihort.

However, not all that glitters is gold. This book apparently lacks the Iraqui and American "side" of the engagement and apparently they consider many of the Iranians testimonies as fait accompli without proper cross checking. It is apparently a good book but a grain of salt must be added. Same as with any info we read tbh.

 

EDIT2: After some more review reading, the book has no sources unless hearsay for many of it's data. Highly suspicious. Also, the Author is Tom Cooper which is known for not double checking many of it's sources and the other author is apparently a former Iranian airforce magazine contributor. So, I will not buy this book and it's credibility just plummeted for me.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Maior

[Eihort]

Osprey isn't known for publishing garbage. I also wouldn't go quoting parts of Mr. Forczyk's review either. That is probably the most inaccurate review I've ever read, and some of his counterpoints are completely rediculous.

 

True, everything in the book has to be taken with a grain of salt, and the authors are up front about the difficulty in finding any sort of possible confirmation in the reports. However, there is some crediblity in that they go to some lengths to protect the identities of their sources. The only line is supposed to be the party line, and pilots giving interviews about the conflict goes against that. Particularly the parts of Hawk batteries commiting fratricide, and a few pilots that defected with their F-14s for reasons below.

 

Many of these pilots had no love for the Islamic government, only for Iran. After the revolution, and the attempted coup by the Air Force, these guys were locked up, beaten, and worse. Then once the war starts, they're asked to get in their planes and fight. Remember that they were trained by some of the best instructors America had at the time. Pilots and maintainers both. If they were so useless and handicapped, why did the US decide to turn the F-14 fleet once retired into chaff? I knew someone who worked in the USN on them, and some of the things they were doing right at the end-of-life on the airframes to keep them running is barely believable, but certainly acheivable by people with the type of knowledge Iranian personnel would have had at the time.

 

You're never going to find any 100% accurate information about the conflict because of the politics all around. Even in the American report, this is the same thinking that said the MiG-25 was this marvelous supernatural form of flying death and our only hope of surviving the eventual meat grinder of the Fulda Gap was to develop the F-15. Well one defection later that turned out to not be true.

 

I truly believe you are cheating yourself by not reading something that obviously didn't come out of the "Iraninan Military History Ministry".

[Maior]

Osprey isn't known for publishing garbage. I also wouldn't go quoting parts of Mr. Forczyk's review either. That is probably the most inaccurate review I've ever read, and some of his counterpoints are completely rediculous.

 

As for Osprey not publishing garbage, well, you obviously never had an interest in Ancient History. Some fice years ago, I started to study the Classic Empires and boy, was that garbage. Also, Their books on Napoleon and WWII are usually outdated and with lots of disinformation. I remember wanting a book on the JS2 like the one I have for the Tiger and Panther by Thomas Jentz and David Glanz and never got to buy it because only Osprey was available. I'm not guiding myself through the review of Forczyk. Even reviews that gave it 3 and 4 stars mention that there are no sources to check pilots claims.

 

True, everything in the book has to be taken with a grain of salt, and the authors are up front about the difficulty in finding any sort of possible confirmation in the reports. However, there is some crediblity in that they go to some lengths to protect the identities of their sources. The only line is supposed to be the party line, and pilots giving interviews about the conflict goes against that. Particularly the parts of Hawk batteries commiting fratricide, and a few pilots that defected with their F-14s for reasons below.

 

Many of these pilots had no love for the Islamic government, only for Iran. After the revolution, and the attempted coup by the Air Force, these guys were locked up, beaten, and worse. Then once the war starts, they're asked to get in their planes and fight. Remember that they were trained by some of the best instructors America had at the time. Pilots and maintainers both. If they were so useless and handicapped, why did the US decide to turn the F-14 fleet once retired into chaff? I knew someone who worked in the USN on them, and some of the things they were doing right at the end-of-life on the airframes to keep them running is barely believable, but certainly acheivable by people with the type of knowledge Iranian personnel would have had at the time.

 

You're never going to find any 100% accurate information about the conflict because of the politics all around. Even in the American report, this is the same thinking that said the MiG-25 was this marvelous supernatural form of flying death and our only hope of surviving the eventual meat grinder of the Fulda Gap was to develop the F-15. Well one defection later that turned out to not be true.

 

I truly believe you are cheating yourself by not reading something that obviously didn't come out of the "Iraninan Military History Ministry".

Well, if I wanted to be cynical, I could ask you how do you know that the info doesn't come from the Iranian government? All the sources the authors use are ex-pilots with fake names. How do you know it's not fake? You know, whenever I publish an article, I have to properly cross reference it. This way, reviewers will look to my work and can check all the facts I present. If I did an article on the AIM-54 missile, and presented Iranian pilots with fake names as my only source, I'd never publish. Maybe it's because of my background but this book spells BS to me and, since I own a limited budget, I have many other books to buy first.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Maior

[RIPTIDE]

60+ confirmed kills, including 3 Mig-23's with one missile.

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml

 

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml

Hang on until I get my pinch of salt....

 

It's unfortunate for Iranian fantastic claims that since that list 2003, and the events since then, Biographies and Vets have come out and told a different story of the Iraqi side in that particular war. ;)

[RIPTIDE]

EDIT2: After some more review reading, the book has no sources unless hearsay for many of it's data. Highly suspicious. Also, the Author is Tom Cooper which is known for not double checking many of it's sources and the other author is apparently a former Iranian airforce magazine contributor. So, I will not buy this book and it's credibility just plummeted for me.

Guess who authors 4 of the 7 books listed on the acig website. :D

 

http://www.acig.org/books/

[Maior]

Guess who authors 4 of the 7 books listed on the acig website. :D

 

http://www.acig.org/books/

 

Yup, figured as much. And only three of those seven books apply to the period in question. Guess who wrote all of them? :D

 

Also, after looking in the web, only these authors have such claims on what the air battle was like. Another alarm bell rings. Either they have unparalleled access to data (more so than intelligence agencies around the World) or, they wrote a book to sell betting on highly controversial claims.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Maior

[159th_Viper]

Hang on until I get my pinch of salt....

 

It's unfortunate for Iranian fantastic claims that since that list 2003, and the events since then, Biographies and Vets have come out and told a different story of the Iraqi side in that particular war. ;)

 

Aye, every Tom, Dick and Bob's an expert........All you need is a keyboard :megalol:

[RIPTIDE]

........All you need is a keyboard :megalol:

And a willing publishing house. :)

[159th_Viper]

Oh so true :)

[Maior]

And a willing publishing house. :)

 

And one that doesn't allows you to see the references of the book in the preview preferably. I was led astray once with a T-34 specialized book and I wound up with the biggest literature lemon available on the subject. The Book was published in 2005 or so yet, it's information was more like 1950 something. From T-34s destroying over 400 Tigers during the Kursk campaign to other stupid gibberish, you name it. Sources were mainly from Soviet propaganda and other similar "high quality" venues. If sources had been available, I'd avoid buying that book.

 

That's why now I spend time reading reviews. The book was cheap tbh but too expensive for toilet tissue. Also the paper sheets do not provide enough grip and absorption.

 

Back on topic, I'm searching for more info on the wars of the 80s so if anyone finds decent nuggets of information do keep posting. RIPTIDE, any pointers on those Iraqi vets and biographies?

 

I feel that the 80s, early 90s will be the prime focus of this sim since a lot of info becomes available on the platforms available. I would still like to see a proper F-117 modelled in this game for some stealthy strike missions :)

[RIPTIDE]

Maior:

 

Have a read of this: 'Sadaam's War' long enquiries to Lt. Gen. Ra'ad Hamdani. He supposedly wrote memoirs but it's probably in Arabic. It covers a huge area of time, though from 73 onwards to 03.

 

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/saddams-war.pdf

 

I'll try to find more. AFAIK there's a few extracts in English from private accounts/bios and are from longer extracts/books written in Arabic and published in Gulf countries.