iraqi airforce in 1980s

Khanzeer

Banned
I wonder how well equipped early export SU24's would have been. The Iraqi crews would presumably have needed time to learn how to effectively use the air craft.

Maybe if an ASB could have given the Iraqis a strike force similar to the Australian F111 force along with their crews and weapons then the Iraqis could have made significantly more headway than they did historically but I suspect even that type of force could have suffered significant losses against the Iranians.
Which equivalent western strike aircraft iraq could have leased ? How about 40 + tornado IDS in 1981 ? Afterall saudis were fully backing him with $$
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Leave frontal air defense to GBAD, use fighters for defense to sap out Iranian strength, use SCUD's against Iranian air bases, use offensive air power only very selectively against critical targets, such as Iranian oil infrastructure to destroy their economy.
What was the state of IRAQ SAM defences?if Egypt in 73 can have a sophisticated air defence system then certainly the much richer Iraq can in 1982?

Can you please elaborate on the following thanks

"use fighters for defense to sap out Iranian strength"
 

SsgtC

Banned
Which equivalent western strike aircraft iraq could have leased ? How about 40 + tornado IDS in 1981 ? Afterall saudis were fully backing him with $$
Iraq was very cozy with the USSR in 81. No way in hell would the UK sell them Tornado.
 
Which equivalent western strike aircraft iraq could have leased ? How about 40 + tornado IDS in 1981 ? Afterall saudis were fully backing him with $$
I really don't know... Sorry

In any event I suspect acquiring modern western strike air craft would be only one part of a series of changes that would have been needed.
 
What was the state of IRAQ SAM defences?if Egypt in 73 can have a sophisticated air defence system then certainly the much richer Iraq can in 1982?

Yes, they should have. Especially as the operations were not that mobile... Allowing GBAD free fields of fire greatly helps air defense.

Can you please elaborate on the following thanks

"use fighters for defense to sap out Iranian strength"

Like Carl Schwamberger wrote on the first page. Destroy the IIAF planes in Iraqi airspace when they're striking Iraq, which is easier, allows concentration of force and gets you the IIAF pilots too.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Yes, they should have. Especially as the operations were not that mobile... Allowing GBAD free fields of fire greatly helps air defense.



Like Carl Schwamberger wrote on the first page. Destroy the IIAF planes in Iraqi airspace when they're striking Iraq, which is easier, allows concentration of force and gets you the IIAF pilots too.
Great point about the free field of fire !

I always wondered the latter point , obsolete fighters as point defence interceptors may actually be not so worthless, if they distract and occupy a much more sophisticated and expensive enemy fighter until more advanced friendly fighters can engage them on favorable terms.
 
Short answer? They were chosen based on political reliability and only members of the Baath Party were eligible. And membership in the Baath Party was largely restricted to Suni Muslims.

That was made clear in a terrific article I read a few years ago, that focused on the Iraqi military during the Iran - Iraq war. It went into forensic depth about the scale of issues that plagued the Iraqi military at all levels and if I can remember the name would recommend it to the OP.

Political reliability is important, but eyesight, intelligence & hand eye co-ordination would rank above political reliability in forming an effective Air Force IMHO and probably yours as well. Which is the largest blockage precluding the formation of an effective Air Force under President Hussein.

Unless there is an ASB SI in the works and I suggest that as the only reason I read the article a few years ago was that I was considering it.
 
I really don't know... Sorry

In any event I suspect acquiring modern western strike air craft would be only one part of a series of changes that would have been needed.

Modern weapon systems are worthless if you don't have people who can employ their capabilities and just as important, people who can keep them maintained. They would be better off with more simple and rugged planes that their pilots can employ and do not require the same level of tender loving care that more complicated systems require.
 
As a wild card, how about contracting people who are proven able to fight American planes, can use Soviet systems well and would probably love some oil and money, and do not personally have any interest in Middle East. I mean, the Vietnamese.
 
Modern weapon systems are worthless if you don't have people who can employ their capabilities and just as important, people who can keep them maintained. They would be better off with more simple and rugged planes that their pilots can employ and do not require the same level of tender loving care that more complicated systems require.
I'm inclined to agree for defensive use and perhaps over the battle field use, but IMHO mounting an effective deep strike air campaign against the Iranians is probably going to require advanced air craft. (Probably F111, Tornado, SU24 class aircraft, along with the necessary weapons, skilled personell etc..)

An interesting what if would be if the Iraqis obtain SU24's earlier and the Soviets make a major effort to train the needed Iraqi personell (basically train the Iraqis to the same standards as the Soviet pilots who were tasked with flying against NATO.) Some of the accounts I have read of the historical Tu22 missions have left me with the impression that the Iraqis were able to employ complex equipment quite well on occasion.

The Iraqis would also probably need a pipe line of well trained replacements to sustain the campaign, along with replacement aircraft from the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they should have. Especially as the operations were not that mobile... Allowing GBAD free fields of fire greatly helps air defense.



Like Carl Schwamberger wrote on the first page. Destroy the IIAF planes in Iraqi airspace when they're striking Iraq, which is easier, allows concentration of force and gets you the IIAF pilots too.
I'm not convinced the Iranians would fall into that type of trap. While they did fly some deep strike missions against the Iraqis they also seemed to emphasize keeping a viable air defence force intact.

IMHO destroying the Iranian Air Force is going to involve destroying them on the ground in Iran or perhaps in the air over Iran while they are trying to stop the former from happening.
 

SsgtC

Banned
An interesting what if would be if the Iraqis obtain SU24's earlier and the Soviets make a major effort to train the needed Iraqi personell (basically train the Iraqis to the same standards as the Soviet pilots who were tasked with flying against NATO.)
That would require ASB intervention. The Soviets specifically didn't train their client states to that level. It was a deliberate choice by the USSR to keep their clients easily controllable/conquerable.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
As a wild card, how about contracting people who are proven able to fight American planes, can use Soviet systems well and would probably love some oil and money, and do not personally have any interest in Middle East. I mean, the Vietnamese.
Great idea
Vietnamese allegedly sold Iran f5 and could lease pilots to iraq
 
That would require ASB intervention. The Soviets specifically didn't train their client states to that level. It was a deliberate choice by the USSR to keep their clients easily controllable/conquerable.
Yes that does make sense.

Edit to add, buying aircraft such as the Su24 without also having pilots who are fully trained to use them does seem a bit odd, but I suppose it made sense at the time to nations involved.
 
Last edited:
Top