Because Saddam hated them.Wonder why shias didn't join Baath party ?
Because Saddam hated them.Wonder why shias didn't join Baath party ?
Which equivalent western strike aircraft iraq could have leased ? How about 40 + tornado IDS in 1981 ? Afterall saudis were fully backing him with $$I wonder how well equipped early export SU24's would have been. The Iraqi crews would presumably have needed time to learn how to effectively use the air craft.
Maybe if an ASB could have given the Iraqis a strike force similar to the Australian F111 force along with their crews and weapons then the Iraqis could have made significantly more headway than they did historically but I suspect even that type of force could have suffered significant losses against the Iranians.
What was the state of IRAQ SAM defences?if Egypt in 73 can have a sophisticated air defence system then certainly the much richer Iraq can in 1982?Leave frontal air defense to GBAD, use fighters for defense to sap out Iranian strength, use SCUD's against Iranian air bases, use offensive air power only very selectively against critical targets, such as Iranian oil infrastructure to destroy their economy.
Iraq was very cozy with the USSR in 81. No way in hell would the UK sell them Tornado.Which equivalent western strike aircraft iraq could have leased ? How about 40 + tornado IDS in 1981 ? Afterall saudis were fully backing him with $$
Iraq was very cozy with the USSR in 81. No way in hell would the UK sell them Tornado.
I really don't know... SorryWhich equivalent western strike aircraft iraq could have leased ? How about 40 + tornado IDS in 1981 ? Afterall saudis were fully backing him with $$
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"
I understand , you raised many valid pointsI 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.
Maybe italians will ? But they probably didn't have it in service yet eitherThe Tornado was also not operational with the RAF until 1982 so they will not be selling it to Iraq or anyone else in 1981.
Great point about the free field of fire !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 read in a book by Doug Richardson that mirage 4000 project had a lot of iraqi interest , is that true ?Iraq was very cozy with the USSR in 81. No way in hell would the UK sell them Tornado.
Probably. But the French were much more willing to sell weapons abroad. Even to potential adversaries.I read in a book by Doug Richardson that mirage 4000 project had a lot of iraqi interest , is that true ?
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.
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.
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..)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 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.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.
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.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.)
Great ideaAs 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.
Yes that does make sense.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.