Tells you already enough of Ausairpower...
This website I spent hours, and hours to read nearly all its articles. This website is well done.
Ausairpower.net made a very serious work, nevertheless, the problem with Karlo Koop's website is its approach. I mean, he has an accademic attitude, because its conclusions are from US DOD, and Israeli defense minister informations. In other words, Karlo Koop's conclusions are from the center of propaganda, or, from the center lies. Hence, many times, he has complete wrong conclusions.
Here is an excerpt what he wrote about Desert Storm
...The notion that the cumbersome SA-4 and SA-5 systems, and new mobile SA-10, SA-11 and SA-12 would have made up for the additional numbers and capability of Allied electronic combat assets in that theatre is hard to support
What this suggests is that the NATO-Warpac central European air battle would have probably followed a similar course, leading to the defeat of the Communists' IADS within a week or so, in turn leading to air superiority in the following week, as the Communist air forces would have withered under the fire of the Allied counter-air campaign.
Iam sorry but these conclusions are merely stupids, if not idiots. It is hard to know why Iraq did not fight as they might be. Nevertheless, a conflict is never an easy to study, even less to conclued quickly.
Here is a quote, that was in fact completly forgotten, and it reveal how hard was the US coalition engagement in Iraq war.
Navy attacks Iraqi oil tanker, triggering Schwarzkopf's threat of court-martial. British high command, alarmed at aircraft losses, abandons low-altitude attacks against airfields
What does this "innoncent sentence" -British high command, alarmed at aircraft losses, abandons low-altitude attacks
- suggest ?
5 days after the begining Desert Storm war, it suggests at least that the aircraft losses are higher than we were told. Told by US-British propaganda there is far to be a simple detail, but another thing that suggest that Iraqi air defense behaved better than we thougt. And the bombing campaign changed its tactics. The best way to bomb is at low altittude, and middle, or high altitude, you bomb nothing, other than useless targets.
Do not forget things.
- The syrian Mig-23 ML -was too, one of the best iraqi fighters- in 1983 downed several israelis' F-15, and F-16. In 1986 a syrian Mig-23 ML defected to Israel, and western specialists rushed to Israel in order to study the Mig-23 ML, they found that its avionics was far better than they believed.
- 1986, the Tolkachev scandall, he betrayed his country, and sold the avionics of the Mig-29, Mig-31, Su-27 and their missiles.
Immediatly, US modified their air fleet avionics.
- 1990, France, member of Nato decided to join US coalition, and revealed all weak points of Kari -the strategical pilar that Iraqi air defense was relied-.
Then, before the war started most of the Iraqis best fighters, and radars were compromised, the secret frequencies were between US hands. Of course, there was easy for US to jam, with their elint, jammers, etc...but, it did not deter heavy losses for US coalition, and they decided to bomb at high altitude, and launch their fire and forget cruise missiles against static infrastructes, with limited impacts -as in Vietnam-.
However, it did not deter Iraqis to manage to evade several dozens of Iraqis fighters, and tankers, including 16 Il-76, and Iraqis to launch ground offensive to Khafji. If indeed, AH-64 Apache, and A-10 took a toll of iraqi armors vehicles, yes, but....because iraqi divisions had been withdrawing from Kuwait, and without defense.
It suggest to me that US coalition had indeed, superiority, but not suprematy against iraqi air defense, but not enough impact to influe about the war. And US coaltion had many difficulties to keep its superiority. With that, how could Karlo Koop assert that in just one week,
US coaltion could obliterate Warsaw pacts. It is simply ridiculous. I started to beware about many nato compliant websites.