Why are Middle Eastern countries rubbish at securing their airspace?

#1
Not that I am complaining, but as general knowledge query - it seems that most Middle Eastern countries are not capable of securing their airspace against Western or NATO aircraft. Why is this? Six Day War, Osirak Bombing, Gulf War I/II, Operation Orchard and the present Libyan no fly zone enforcement - to name a few recent examples.

Is it because no one is selling them high tech anti-aircraft missiles, their pilots are poorly trained or selected, they don't have cutting edge air superiority fighters, their military spending is mostly for internal oppression or our airforces are evolving faster than their ability to counter it?
 
#3
Not that I am complaining, but as general knowledge query - it seems that most Middle Eastern countries are not capable of securing their airspace against Western or NATO aircraft. Why is this? Six Day War, Osirak Bombing, Gulf War I/II, Operation Orchard and the present Libyan no fly zone enforcement - to name a few recent examples.

Is it because no one is selling them high tech anti-aircraft missiles, their pilots are poorly trained or selected, they don't have cutting edge air superiority fighters, their military spending is mostly for internal oppression or our airforces are evolving faster than their ability to counter it?
Some of them do have some decent kit, and even the older Soviet stuff is still capable of doing some damage if properly handled (I've read some quite complimentary accounts of Serb practise in 1999). I think the major cause of their problems with Air Defence is the, ahem, 'unique' work ethic that Arabs bring to the party.
 
#4
I think generally speaking:
Is it because no one is selling them high tech anti-aircraft missiles
Yes
their pilots are poorly trained or selected
Yes
they don't have cutting edge air superiority fighters
Yes
their military spending is mostly for internal oppression
Yes
our airforces are evolving faster than their ability to counter it?
Yes.

Plus, their land areas are generally HUGE. I reckon even the US would struggle to keep the attack aircraft of a determined, modern air force completely out of their airspace.
 
#5
In the training film/documentary 'TOPGUN' (it was real wasn't it)!!!

The opposition forces brought down an allied jet.

Is T(om) Cruise taking part in this mission as I heared something about Tommahawk Cruise flying down town over Daffi Duck.

Really must sort out my hearing problem!!!!
 
#6
I reckon a few Middle Eastern countries could deny enemy aircraft, entering their airspace, Israel, Egypt and possibly Iran if those S-300 thingy majiggies work and go woosh, as they say on the tin.

The others are just ****ing shit. Plus us inbreds of the Western world are only about 30 years infront of them technology wise.
 
#7
Only 30 years?

That's a bloody long way. Think of a 1981 car, computer or mobile 'phone and how high-tech they were...
 
#9
Some of them do have some decent kit, and even the older Soviet stuff is still capable of doing some damage if properly handled (I've read some quite complimentary accounts of Serb practise in 1999). I think the major cause of their problems with Air Defence is the, ahem, 'unique' work ethic that Arabs bring to the party.
Can you please explain what this work ethic is?

I think generally speaking:
Plus, their land areas are generally HUGE. I reckon even the US would struggle to keep the attack aircraft of a determined, modern air force completely out of their airspace.
The US is probably unique in that they have the Pacific and Atlantic oceans + a supreme navy to patrol them. Therefore while US airspace may technically begin near where its land mass is, the de facto size of their airspace is larger.

What doctrine would a large country with a technologically advanced military like Russia follow to defend its airspace? Would it be a layered combination of interceptors, fixed SAMs around key sites and mobile SAMs? How can this counter long range terrain following cruise missile barrages?
 
#12
#14
Well, the other big factor since the late 80s has been the increasing range of stand-off weaponry which rather unsportingly lets a well-equipped attacker blat the air defences with TLAMs, CALCMs, Storm Shadow, etc without any aircraft having to enter the envelope of long-range SAMs.

All that said, the exception to the rule not listed in IndyBoffin's list of one-sided air campaigns is of course the Yom Kippur war, when the Israelis suffered quite badly when they tried rerunning '67 vs the new Egyptian combo of SA-6 and Shilkas.
 
#15
All that said, the exception to the rule not listed in IndyBoffin's list of one-sided air campaigns is of course the Yom Kippur war, when the Israelis suffered quite badly when they tried rerunning '67 vs the new Egyptian combo of SA-6 and Shilkas.
The Syrian SAM's did rather well also in the same conflict. Essentialy it wasnt till they got overrun or ran out of missiles that the 'SAM Shield' didnt really put the IAF on the backfoot. 6-1 losses on attempting SEAD were bad news.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#16
There's also the problem of running an airforce where the only people eligible to be pilots are those belonging to a certain group - either a specific tribe, or sect, or family. This is common throughout the Arab world. Get the 'eligible' group wrong, and you end up with pilots defecting with their planes. Get it right, and you are instantly limiting your pool of potential pilots to a small fraction of those available, which is probably not a good thing.

It also happens that some people (sorry, some men - no Wimmin allowed!) are trained to become pilots because they want to do so, not because they are particularly good at it. Helps if your Uncle or Daddy is the King/dictator/President. And who on earth wants to service the damn things? Far better leave that sort of nonsense to foreign contractors, immigrant workers, and other equally reliable and trustworthy types. Reliable and trustworthy, that is, while the money is there...
 
#17
Good Post Snowy.
After Gulf One Oman wanted to get rid of all their expensive Westerners, maintaining their aircraft.
It was going to happen, or so we where told.
Then the Pilots wives got together and pleaded with the Mother of the Sultan who changed her sons mind.
They had all been brought up having a Honkey look after their Cab and no way where they having a n***er (Flashman/GBS type) looking after them.

john
Not just the Honkey who's racist.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
Good Post Snowy.
After Gulf One Oman wanted to get rid of all their expensive Westerners, maintaining their aircraft.
It was going to happen, or so we where told.
Then the Pilots wives got together and pleaded with the Mother of the Sultan who changed her sons mind.
They had all been brought up having a Honkey look after their Cab and no way where they having a n***er (Flashman/GBS type) looking after them.

john
Not just the Honkey who's racist.
True - and I seem to remember being advised, many years ago, by an old (Ex-RAF WW2 Bomber Pilot) pilot in, then BOAC, that the first rule of safe flying was - NEVER fly in a 'plane with a pilot whose English was not top-notch, or who was of a, err, darker hue (He was a bit more basic about it). He was fine with Indian, Chinese, Japanese, pilots - cunning buggers, the lot of 'em - it's just the whole of the Middle East and Africa were not, in his experience, good sources of pilots!
 
#20
face it if the US decide to give you a kicking not a lot you can do about it.
S300 got flogged to cyprus a member of Nato so your super high tech sam has had loads of NATO techs look all over it:)
even if it was the export model the basic stats are known.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top