Why are Middle Eastern countries rubbish at securing their airspace?

Discussion in 'Syria, Mali, Libya, Middle East & North Africa' started by IndependentBoffin, Mar 20, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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?
  2. Pretty much. But Allah (PBUH etc) wills it, so that's ok.
  3. 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:

    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...
  8. yeah,but all the arabs live in this country now,or had'nt you noticed.
  9. Can you please explain what this work ethic is?

    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?
  10. ( As a generalisation ) The Arab work ethic is much like the African work ethic...shite.
  11. You mean lazy good for nothing layabouts?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.