Israeli Air Force (IAF) strength
- Thread starter Micx
- Start date
With no disrespect to the IAF which I greatly admire, the kill/loss ratios look rather dubious to me, even more so than the figures claimed by the RAF during the Battle of Britain which we now know were exaggerated for wartime propaganda and morale purposes.youtube.com/watch?v=hKZEo6d-ypc&mode=related&search=
nice video
However, I did enjoy the video!
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
They don't mention that the majority of IAF aircraft kills were aircraft they bombed on the ground...With no disrespect to the IAF which I greatly admire, the kill/loss ratios look rather dubious to me, even more so than the figures claimed by the RAF during the Battle of Britain which we now know were exaggerated for wartime propaganda and morale purposes.
However, I did enjoy the video!
Cheers
Still they have proven themselves repeatedly...
Not too much. The 'I' or 'Ra'am' has Israeli made ESSM and EW kits, and has been modified to carry and shoot Israeli made Python 4 AAM, and AGM-142/Spice AGMs.
Cheers
Magoo
They didnt "decimate" Saddams nuclear plans with the bombing of the reactor ot Osirak. They might have slowed it down a little, but Iraq responded with dispersing their program. Osirak wasnt even an active reactor at the time of the bombing. Indeed, some think the attack spurred on Saddam with his nuke program.
Overall its was a well executed plan however, tho I wouldnt call the IAF the worlds "best".
Overall its was a well executed plan however, tho I wouldnt call the IAF the worlds "best".
Khairul Alam
New Member
Maybe you are basing your opinion on the poor performance of Arab airforces during conflicts with Israel. I would not wholly blame the Soviet equipments. I would rather blame poor Arab tactics and the lack of proper and realistic training.
I dont agree with the Soviets producing junk. Some of their designs have been disappointing, and many of them have been exported to countries with 3rd rate air forces. Even the Soviet air force have had serious issues of training, flight time, doctrine, and most of all distrust/persecution of the ones making the tactical decisions with the airplanes.
Think about it? I can name a dozen or more countries using, or having used, Russian aircraft where the first, and the last, requirement for its leadership positions is Political reliability. That, or who daddy is. It got even worse in the Soviet Union after that guy flew that MIG-25 to Japan because he figured he'd had enough of communism.
The leadership of the Arab air forces which Israel defeated were modeled after the Soviets in that they simply didn't trust their pilots or Tacticians. An example would be the Vietnam war where the NV pilots were enslaved to the ground controllers and could do nothing without getting an OK from them. There is no question the operators of Russian aircraft have always been severely handicapped by significant faults in leadership, doctrine, trust, training, maintenance, equipment of export models..ect
Are Russian aircraft as good as Western ones? Some are/were, most weren't/aren't. IF they would have always been flown by western Pilots, with western doctrine, leadership, trust, maintenance...ect The results would have been far different.
I would call the Ideology junk, the ideology that consistently, in some way, prevented the operators of Russian made air craft to reach their potential. The Soviets/Russians did an awful lot with what they had available. They did not make "junk", nor, do they now.
Think about it? I can name a dozen or more countries using, or having used, Russian aircraft where the first, and the last, requirement for its leadership positions is Political reliability. That, or who daddy is. It got even worse in the Soviet Union after that guy flew that MIG-25 to Japan because he figured he'd had enough of communism.
The leadership of the Arab air forces which Israel defeated were modeled after the Soviets in that they simply didn't trust their pilots or Tacticians. An example would be the Vietnam war where the NV pilots were enslaved to the ground controllers and could do nothing without getting an OK from them. There is no question the operators of Russian aircraft have always been severely handicapped by significant faults in leadership, doctrine, trust, training, maintenance, equipment of export models..ect
Are Russian aircraft as good as Western ones? Some are/were, most weren't/aren't. IF they would have always been flown by western Pilots, with western doctrine, leadership, trust, maintenance...ect The results would have been far different.
I would call the Ideology junk, the ideology that consistently, in some way, prevented the operators of Russian made air craft to reach their potential. The Soviets/Russians did an awful lot with what they had available. They did not make "junk", nor, do they now.
contedicavour
New Member
Today's IAF relies on very recent batches of F15s and F16s. Training and maintenance are at a very high standard. Last but not least, several billions of USDs are being funded by the US to help out. Overall it is not surprising that Israel has such a lead over neighboring countries' air forces.
Though this has nothing to do with the quality of Russian jets. If confronted with the latest Flankers SU30 with the AA-12 and AA-11 aboard and piloted by well trained crews, then even IAF F15 and F16s would have a tough time.
Anyway, we all know now that IAF is mostly likely to run bombing and COIN missions against well armed guerrilla forces. So daydreaming about dogfights with Syrian or Iranian Fulcrums seems to be a bit out of date...
cheers
Though this has nothing to do with the quality of Russian jets. If confronted with the latest Flankers SU30 with the AA-12 and AA-11 aboard and piloted by well trained crews, then even IAF F15 and F16s would have a tough time.
Anyway, we all know now that IAF is mostly likely to run bombing and COIN missions against well armed guerrilla forces. So daydreaming about dogfights with Syrian or Iranian Fulcrums seems to be a bit out of date...
cheers
In a way its actually quite ironic. The very success of the IAF relative to the other airforces in the region means that they are probably never going to be challenged in the air again. All future military action against Israel will be unconventional which in some ways neutralizes the advantage of the IAF's air superiority. Of course, this is not the fault of the IAF.
When did they fight 4 air forces at once? I can't think of a war in which they did that.Amazing video you got there mate. Wow, these Israelis sure did some amazing stuff. Fought 4 air forces at once, thats interesting....Cheers!!!
1967 The opposing Air Forces were
- Syria
- Jordan
- Egypt, and
- Yemen (I'm not sure about this last one)
Also, IIRC Iraq had also lent a squadron or two of Hunters to the Arab build-up of weapons.
Never heard of any Yemeni aircraft taking part, & in any case, what air force did Yemen have? I think Algeria sent some aircraft to Egypt, but AFAIK they were flown by Egyptians.
I don't think you can really say Israel fought all 4 at once. Egypt lost most of its air force on the ground before Syria & Jordan joined the war. Jordan lost most of its Hunters on the ground soon afterwards. Most of the Iraqi air force stayed at home. Israel was able to fight them piecemeal. Before 09:45 on June 5th, Israel only fought the Egyptian air force, & by 08:30 had superiority in numbers over the combined Arab air forces opposed to it.
Israel have only tested themselves against 3nd-rate air forces. That doesn't mean they don't have a 1st-rate armed service, however. But militarily its quite a potent point that until they have a record of fighting against an equal armed service... its a contradcitory emphasis for how good Israel armed services are.
I know that other Arab nations sent war planes, or offered to send, war planes to Egypt after its stunning opening day losses. Most notably Libya and Morocco, and possibly Yemen, but as far as I know the only ones who lost air planes in the war were Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. And they lost over 400 to Israels 26.
A month or two before the war started the IAF and SAF clashed, during which 6 Syrian jets were shot down. I think that battle was a big warning to the Jews, that, and the closing of their port at Eilat by the Egyptians. A big warning that the Arabs meant business.
If you want to understand why the IAF has always been so successful then study their operational doctrine. They believe 100% in the doctrine of offensive maneuver warfare. They dont have space, systems, or manpower, to trade for time. Instead count on them to take the offensive every time they can. This has always been the prevailing doctrine of their entire defense force, and became that of their air force after the remarkable achievements of the 6 day war.
They keep their air force at a high state of readiness at all times. And not just because the IAF has a nuclear mission, but also because the IAF has to quickly win air superiority in order to allow its mobilization mechanism to function relatively unimpeded by enemy air power. Their Geo-Political reality demands an aggressive doctrine.
Of course the second mission they are tasked with is battlefield support and long range strike missions. No matter what kind of mission they are flying however they can be counted on to be audacious and innovative.
I always thought survival was the best of all the motivators.
A month or two before the war started the IAF and SAF clashed, during which 6 Syrian jets were shot down. I think that battle was a big warning to the Jews, that, and the closing of their port at Eilat by the Egyptians. A big warning that the Arabs meant business.
If you want to understand why the IAF has always been so successful then study their operational doctrine. They believe 100% in the doctrine of offensive maneuver warfare. They dont have space, systems, or manpower, to trade for time. Instead count on them to take the offensive every time they can. This has always been the prevailing doctrine of their entire defense force, and became that of their air force after the remarkable achievements of the 6 day war.
They keep their air force at a high state of readiness at all times. And not just because the IAF has a nuclear mission, but also because the IAF has to quickly win air superiority in order to allow its mobilization mechanism to function relatively unimpeded by enemy air power. Their Geo-Political reality demands an aggressive doctrine.
Of course the second mission they are tasked with is battlefield support and long range strike missions. No matter what kind of mission they are flying however they can be counted on to be audacious and innovative.
I always thought survival was the best of all the motivators.
Rich, you know a lot of things which are wrong. Libya & Yemen (which was in the middle of a civil war) hardly had air forces in 1967. Certainly sent no aircraft, & I doubt they offered any. Lebanon was not involved in the 1967 war. It carefully stayed out, & none of its Hunters took off to intercept the Israeli & Syrian incursions into its airspace. Morocco sent no aircraft at all in 1967, & I've never heard of it offering any. But you have not mentioned Algeria, which did send some aircraft, to replace a few of the Egyptian losses. No pilots or ground crew, though, just the hardware.
You may be confusing 1967 & 1973 in some cases. Libya sent some fighters to Egypt in the October War, & Morocco sent a few ground troops to Syria.
BTW, Israeli losses were significantly more than 26. Generally given as mid-40s to just over 50, depending on whether non-combat types & operational accidents are included.
Last edited by a moderator: