Your proof for that?

Below 2,000 feet, small arms were the most serious threat, but US directives limiting most operations to altitudes above 4,500 feet, the maximum effective altitude of small arms fire, limited the effect of these weapons. Other weapons included 14.5mm, 37mm, 57mm, 85mm, and l00mm gun batteries, with effective altitude coverage up to 45,000 feet. The effectiveness of these weapons varied with gun concentration, weather, and the type of attack flown by the aircraft aimed fire, Evasive action by US aircraft limited the effect of most fire encountered by US aircraft was barrage type, where the defenders simply put up a wall of flak in front of the attacking aircraft. The AAA was most effective if the cloud bases were below 8,000 feet, as this allowed the gunners to set the fuzing of the shells more accurately at the same time that aircraft vertical maneuvering was restricted by the clouds.

This is not disputed! The flak shot down many more US aicrafts than MiGs and SAMs combined. BUT, in 1972 there was not a single B-52s shot down by a.a. flak. Only SAMs, and maybe, 1-2 by MiGs. This is not dispoutable, all the sources available say this. The rest is really ‘hor air’. 15 B-52 shot down by SA-2s ,vs 1 damaged by flak. If you do not believe it, please give usa source (reliable) that says oterhwise.

Cost effectiveness was in some way not an issue in 1975-1985 period though. Detente went down the toilet in 1980, so one would’ve expected more MiG-23s to be funnelled through to Warpac.

Warsaw Pact did invest in fighter bombers – e.g. Poland acquired large numbers of Su-22s and Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria acquired MiG-23BN and Su-25.

However, attack aircraft without appropriate top cover fighter support are pointless. Hence in case of WWIII, Warpac states would’ve had to rely on generosity of USSR to maintain air defence capability.

In case of SA, Mirage IIIs were already upgraded to Cheetah standard, the Mirage F1s were not. So in this case Cheetah was more advanced than Mirage F1.

Also South African AF collapsed in the same way Eastern European ones did.

Lat Swedish AF frontline Viggen was retired in 2005 whilst last Draken was retired in 1999, so they did not retire newer aircraft in favour of older simpler aircraft. The 50 J-35J’s retained to 1999 were all upgraded aircraft.

In Western Europe, older generation “simpler” jets were discarded and 4th generation retained:

e.g. Belgium retired Mirage V, kept F-16. RAF retired F-4, kept Tornado ADV, etc etc. France retired the last of it’s III/Vs. Norway retired F-5A/B and kept F-16.

USAF got rid of A-7, F-4 and not-so-simple F-111 in favour of F-16s.

Post 1991 the Eastern Europeans retained MiG-21 instead of MiG-23 and in some cases MiG-29. But that was after Cold War and the numbers of MiG-21s kept servicable was pathetically low. I suspect if NATO didn’t require them to be able to police their own airspace, the MiG-21s would’ve been scrapped as well.

Facts are an hard problems for you, or?

When i said Draken i meant that Draken selled better than the Viggen, not that i was retired after.

About SAAF; the fact is, that they got rid from F.1s before the M.III. Those latter were upgraded and it was expected to do the same with the F.1 as well, but it wasn’t happened.

AFAIK: the MiG-23MF of IAF were retired far earlier than the Bison, right? Yess, the MIG-21 were upgraded, the ’23 weren’t. But there must be some reasons behind, or?

If really MiG-23 was the correct answer, then IAF would have bough hundreds of them.But instead, they decided to go directly to MiG-29 and MIrage 2000. There was no point to choose the MiG-23 in ’80s, as ‘front line fighter’ if something better would be soon available.

MiG-23ML was what the earlier MiG-23MF should have been year earlier: but entering in service roughly with F-14, F-15 and F-16 was quite ‘unfair’ for the fighter -Flogger. Even worse, the F-16 was widespread all around in few years. While soviets sold mainly MF, MS and BN versions, plus the UB, of course.

Add to this, that the MiG-23 was effectively a ‘bxtch’ to maintain properly (not surprisingly, it was not a simple MiG-21) and you get the picture.

This is not to say that it was a bad aircraft, simply it was not up to date.

And see the post made by Michael in ACIG forum about this issue (in NVA aviation).

Lastly: the FA already had a lot of MiG-23s in eastern Europe. After all, the Luftwaffe had just F-4Fs, AMI had F-104S, and many other had F-104/M.5/F.1/F-16 (without MRAAMs), so the MiG-21 with advanced Atolls and Aphids was still something good to fight with.

AA took its toll, no doubt, but the missiles were just part of the AA.
There were WWII veterans in the ‘Nam war and they said the flak over N. Vietnam was far, far heavier than anything they ever saw in WWII.

Actually they would have been dealing with the F-106 fighters first, then the Hercules.
The radar system thar worked with the interceptors and missiles in the U.S. was very thorough and could see them coming a LONG ways out.
In a replacement system scenario, if you got one you would probably have gotten the other also.

If Iraq by some freak of nature had had those it becomes a totally, and I mean totally a different scenario than simply Russia and allies snuffing Saddam rather than the U.S. and allies.
Just like had Iraq gone to war with an Iran that was not run by Muslim nut-jobs, Iran would have stomped all over them as they would have had a system as advanced as that used by the U.S. Navy.

Radar would know where they are at all times.

There was an F-106 base a few hundred miles north of me and they were often scrambled for intercept of what turned out to be Cessnas and Pipers that had not filed a flight pattern to be where they were.
The base was part of an airport and not once that I visited were Sixes or what the National Guard was flying not scrambled for some reason.

No B-52 was ever shot down by a.a. flak. And you cannot mix this with the SAM forces, that bring down 15 B-52s and damaged many more, archieving atleast 2% PK (seems low, but 0% is worse). SA-2 weren’t ‘big a.a. guns’, they still had a guidance system. That, atleast sometimes, worked.

those are the american public claims from 1991 (which I am well aware of, thank you very much)… I’m talking about the Iraqis.

PS. there is no and never has been any “Al Asad AB”!!!! Perhaps you mean Al Qadisiya AB?

So what kind of missiles shot down the F-14s, F-16 and Tornado, to your mind?

SA2 did not shoot down anything according to the Iraqis. Also don’t forget the limitation of single channel guidance… i.e. an entire SA2 site and all its staff and vehicles, missiles, loaders etc… etc…. can only guide ONE missile at a time!

regarding vietnam, it was a completely different type of war, limited within cold war constraints (i.e. USSR had the PRVs back)… perhaps the gulf war can be compared to simply the “linebacker II” operation and not the overall vietnam war… results were similar. US air overwhelms 3rd world country and proceeds to completely destroy the country’s civilian life from the air which forces that country to throw in the towel rapidly.

”The U.S. Navy suffered its only F-14 loss from enemy action on 21 January 1991 when BuNo 161430, an F-14A upgraded to an F-14A+, from VF-103 was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile while on an escort mission near Al Asad airbase in Iraq. Both crew survived ejection with the pilot being rescued by USAF Special Forces and the RIO being captured by Iraqi troops as a POW until the end of the war.[47] ” (from Wikipedia, but i could cite many other sources as well).

Add the F-16 lost by ‘Lucky Devils’ near Baghdad (togheter with another, shot down apparently by a SA-3). The Tornado was shot down on 14th feb 1991 (a pair of SA-2, or perhaps, an SA-6).

Yes, the scenario S.M. considered simply would not have been as it would meant a totally different Iraq.

The Nike Hercules had a range of minimum 80 miles, and had successfully been tested intercepting ICBMs in the U.S.

Had they had that, they would have had the radar to go with it and then would have been, ala Iran with the F-14s and Phoenix, probably flying refurbished F-106s which could have tied into the Ajax radar system etc., etc..

Still in the long run Iraq would have lost no matter what, if Saddam was acting like Saddam, although the Russian probably unlike Bush would have left all of Iraq a smoking hole in the ground.

Nike Hercules did not shot down ICBMS. That was the Nike Zeus.

BTW, the SA-2 was not that inferior as high altitude SAM. And i wouldn’t bet of any of that two SAM systems against a modern airforce.

Atleast, however, SA-2 was quite mobile and cheap (=many sistems fielded).

Nike Hercules was not so, their SAM sites were pratically fixed, and they cannot effectively defend themselves vs very low level attacks. So they would have been significatively less, and well localizable by enemy air forces.

That of course, would have a very dangerous task, if flying at high altitude within the Hercules range. BUT, this could be said for the SA-2 as well, as the 1972 campaign showed (15 B-52s lost), and even the 1991 war (among the SA-2 victims, a F-14, a Tornado and a F-16). But, the destruction of the NIKE sites (especially if they were equipped with the Ajax) would have been feasible for a low-level strike force such the SU-24 or Tornado. Not counting modern ECMs and ARMs.

Another example: the S-200/SA-5 Gammon was even more powerful than the NIKE (and x2 heavier, just like the Nike vs the SA-2). This did not prevent the air strikes made by USN and USAF vs Lybia in 1986.

This is one of the ‘classic’ thing when we discuss about East vs West equipment. The goal, basically, was to discuss the superiority (absymally) showed by Allied vs Irakis. Was it just a mere equipment thing? Or the overmatching was, neverthless, obtained by the tactics, training, and the scarce iraki willingness to NOT fight a total war, while US wanted to do this?

Do you want an example? Search about the AV-8Bs airbases. If Irakis wanted to strike them, they could have deleted around 70 AV-8B and many more US aicrafts. The two bases were nearly to the frontline, the farther was only at 180 km, just a dozen minuts for an incombing fast jet! There will be hardly the time to activate the defences against an huge and well manned raid.

Do not forget: the US command expected 150 losses in the first 3-5 days of war!

And let’s not forget the moral effect made by Irak incursion to Kafjii.

Or the sudden, formidable attack made by Israel in June 1967, against ‘superior enemy’.

The Allied air force was literally packed in a very insufficient airport structure. When you have to convert a stadium parking to operate AV-8B squadrons, you have the picture. Let just a Su-22 or Mirage full of CBUs flying over that airbase and you can forget the AV-8s.

The only aicraft that had full freedom, were the ones in the US ships (six-seven carriers, and some LHA).

So, let’s elaborate better. You cannot drive any conclusion if you limit the ‘swap’ to the aviation only.

First of all, we also have to discuss the amount of equipment (western is usually costlier than eastern, especially for tanks).

More next.