Desert Storm - How to Plan an Air Campaign

[dexter]

17th January - 23rd February 1991 - Lt General Chuck Horner, under General Norman Schwarzkopf, commanded a highly successful Air Campaign against what was the 4th largest army in the world. When the Ground Campaign launched on the 24th February, the Iraqi military's ability to fight had been significantly reduced by targeted strikes against key targets, allowing for a swift 100 hour victory to liberate Kuwait.
The root of this success was in the operational planning. In this video, we look at how the Air War of Desert Storm was designed to win.

 

[NagaBaba]

One of the greatest air campaigns ever. There's been plenty of good books on the subject. This was one was really good:

"Warthog: flying the a 10 in the gulf war"

amazing read, look it up in case one hasn't already read it.

 

[MastanKhan]

17th January - 23rd February 1991 - Lt General Chuck Horner, under General Norman Schwarzkopf, commanded a highly successful Air Campaign against what was the 4th largest army in the world. When the Ground Campaign launched on the 24th February, the Iraqi military's ability to fight had been significantly reduced by targeted strikes against key targets, allowing for a swift 100 hour victory to liberate Kuwait.
The root of this success was in the operational planning. In this video, we look at how the Air War of Desert Storm was designed to win.

Hi,

The real test of US air force will come against PLAAF 10-15 years from now---.

Then they can claim the bragging rights---if they are victorious---.

This supposed "victory" against a third rate enemy with third rate weapons and strutting around is shameless---.

Shooting ducks in a pond that has a wire fence all around & above does not make you a lion hunter---.

 

[PakFactor]

Hi,

The real test of US air force will come against PLAAF 10-15 years from now---.

Then they can claim the bragging rights---if they are victorious---.

This supposed "victory" against a third rate enemy with third rate weapons and strutting around is shameless---.

Shooting ducks in a pond that has a wire fence all around & above does not make you a lion hunter---.

Iraq wasn't a peer-level rival; I mean, seriously, half of Europe and the US v. Iraq; whoever taught Iraq would stand a chance needs their head checked.
One thing Iraq should have done was pre-empt a strike on the coalition forces to inflict death as much as possible; you knew full well the build-up happening in the region. So why stand there doing nothing? But most of all, this was a significant blow to the Arab world, and they would never recover. They've been left open to the raping the West has been giving them since the 1990s.

 

[Erieye]

It's not hard to have a successful air campaign when you have an overwhelming qualitative and quantative advantage against your enemy.

A 25 year old probably doesn't need to plan too much when fighting against a 15 year old.

Unironically I think Pakistan's airwars against India are more inspirational in the aerial warfare world.

 

[Erieye]

Hi,

The real test of US air force will come against PLAAF 10-15 years from now---.

Then they can claim the bragging rights---if they are victorious---.

This supposed "victory" against a third rate enemy with third rate weapons and strutting around is shameless---.

Shooting ducks in a pond that has a wire fence all around & above does not make you a lion hunter---.

Third rate enemy, third rate weapons, third rate training.

Yet Americans celebrate as if they were the Iraqis and fighting against the Americans.

 

[Oldman1]

Hi,

The real test of US air force will come against PLAAF 10-15 years from now---.

Then they can claim the bragging rights---if they are victorious---.

This supposed "victory" against a third rate enemy with third rate weapons and strutting around is shameless---.

Shooting ducks in a pond that has a wire fence all around & above does not make you a lion hunter---.

The real test? The U.S. has been training to fight against powerful nations like the Soviet Union and China. What do you think about the U.S. fighting against the Russians now excluding nuclear weapons?

Iraq wasn't a peer-level rival; I mean, seriously, half of Europe and the US v. Iraq; whoever taught Iraq would stand a chance needs their head checked.
One thing Iraq should have done was pre-empt a strike on the coalition forces to inflict death as much as possible; you knew full well the build-up happening in the region. So why stand there doing nothing? But most of all, this was a significant blow to the Arab world, and they would never recover. They've been left open to the raping the West has been giving them since the 1990s.

Question is how would they pre-emptive strike? How do you avoid the USAF and Navy? As well as air defense systems? Do they cross the border into Saudi Arabia?

 

[jhungary]

The real test? The U.S. has been training to fight against powerful nations like the Soviet Union and China. What do you think about the U.S. fighting against the Russians now excluding nuclear weapons?


Question is how would they pre-emptive strike? How do you avoid the USAF and Navy? As well as air defense systems? Do they cross the border into Saudi Arabia?

I have reserve posting in these thread.......

First of all, it's NEVER the quality of your enemy. it's how you execute your war plan. There is a saying "You never know if your plan work until you make contact" and once you made contact, there are no turning back.

The issue is not whether or not US can penetrate Iraqi airspace, the issue here is how the USAF and allied air force can correspond the attack to penetrate the Iraqi Airspace, and it's honestly stupid to say "Oh what can Iraqi do, they are third rate enemy, and it does not work when you are against X, Y or Z that are more advance" The problem is, if we are facing China or Russia, we won't be using the same tactics and the same strategy we were using with Iraqi. Not being an Air Force guy like @gambit so I cannot say for the air component of a war. But as an Army guy, I can say for sure that if we were to fight with China or Russia on the ground, we won't use the same strategy we used in 1991 and 2003. We would be using a more comprehensive and conventional method to engage with both country.

Will that be suffice? I don't know, but from the past, we trust our superior officer making decision, that's why our invasion work, and knowing that our superior is not some out of academy battle virgin, we know they can be rely upon.

 

[Sanwal!!]

Iraq wasn't a peer-level rival; I mean, seriously, half of Europe and the US v. Iraq; whoever taught Iraq would stand a chance needs their head checked.
One thing Iraq should have done was pre-empt a strike on the coalition forces to inflict death as much as possible; you knew full well the build-up happening in the region. So why stand there doing nothing? But most of all, this was a significant blow to the Arab world, and they would never recover. They've been left open to the raping the West has been giving them since the 1990s.

They should never invade Kuwait. Unfortunately, this foolish and reckless thinking opened the floodgates of hell, and millions and millions of innocent Muslims are paying the price. And there is no sight of ending this self-imposed calamity. Iraq and Syria are the cradles of civilization and, most importantly cradle of Islamic culture. The cruelty and viciousness these anglo-saxions brought to us remind me of the Mongol invasion.

 

[gambit]

Iraq wasn't a peer-level rival; I mean, seriously, half of Europe and the US v. Iraq; whoever taught Iraq would stand a chance needs their head checked.
One thing Iraq should have done was pre-empt a strike on the coalition forces to inflict death as much as possible; you knew full well the build-up happening in the region. So why stand there doing nothing? But most of all, this was a significant blow to the Arab world, and they would never recover. They've been left open to the raping the West has been giving them since the 1990s.

Because Iraq could do nothing. And if you can do nothing, then nothing will happen. I know it sounds Zen-ish, but that is exactly what happened. Iraq simply did not have the capability to do anything as we built.

This is where all the attempts to minimize Desert Storm air campaign utterly failed. Overwhelming air power became that way because an opponent was somehow 'allowed' to create that overwhelming force OVER TIME. If all we had was an F-16 squadron, would the critics say the same? Of course not. It would have been how the Iraqi Air Force was a 'peer' to the USAF. When I got orders to deploy to DS, our squadron was confident that Iraq will lose simply because the buildup was uninterrupted.

If you somehow 'allowed' the enemy to build up that overwhelming force, whether that allowance was because you cannot or that you can but will not, then your loss is on you. Stop trying to minimize US and focus on the real failure -- Iraq.

 

[PakFactor]

Because Iraq could do nothing. And if you can do nothing, then nothing will happen. I know it sounds Zen-ish, but that is exactly what happened. Iraq simply did not have the capability to do anything as we built.

This is where all the attempts to minimize Desert Storm air campaign utterly failed. Overwhelming air power became that way because an opponent was somehow 'allowed' to create that overwhelming force OVER TIME. If all we had was an F-16 squadron, would the critics say the same? Of course not. It would have been how the Iraqi Air Force was a 'peer' to the USAF. When I got orders to deploy to DS, our squadron was confident that Iraq will lose simply because the buildup was uninterrupted.

If you somehow 'allowed' the enemy to build up that overwhelming force, whether that allowance was because you cannot or that you can but will not, then your loss is on you. Stop trying to minimize US and focus on the real failure -- Iraq.

I was not trying to minimize the U.S. in any way. But, as I said, if anyone thought Iraq had any chance, they needed their head checked with or without the coalition.

Iraq, you are right, couldn't do much, but even some mass air raids to inflict deadly on a concentrated area would have sufficed before going down before the start of the conflict.

But overall, that eight-year conflict with Iran was a f*ck up on their part, but the Arabs faulted as they pushed and depleted Iraq. But, unfortunately, their actions returned to haunt them as Iran now has outsized influence, which they tried to stop, and has become a reality.

 

[Goritoes]

One of the greatest air campaigns ever.

I think you mean, one of the easiest Air campaigns ever right?

 

[LeGenD]

I was not trying to minimize the U.S. in any way. But, as I said, if anyone thought Iraq had any chance, they needed their head checked with or without the coalition.

Iraq, you are right, couldn't do much, but even some mass air raids to inflict deadly on a concentrated area would have sufficed before going down before the start of the conflict.

But overall, that eight-year conflict with Iran was a f*ck up on their part, but the Arabs faulted as they pushed and depleted Iraq. But, unfortunately, their actions returned to haunt them as Iran now has outsized influence, which they tried to stop, and has become a reality.

While Iran - Iraq war was a terrible conflict on the whole because it led to loss of a large number of lives on both sides (Muslim vs. Muslim), Iraq was able to build a much better war-machine with international support by the end of it. Iraq was at its finest in terms of being equipped for a war when Saddam Hussein decided to fight one with US-led forces over Kuwait in 1991. I have pointed out this fact in here.

I do not get the "depleted Iraq" part, therefore. This is baseless assumption. Let's not try to rewrite history to suit our narratives.

I think you mean, one of the easiest Air campaigns ever right?

So easy that US felt the need to use its state-of-the-art technology such as a combination of cruise missiles and stealthy aircraft to attack Iraqi C2 infrastructure including radar systems and SAM systems in an attempt to cripple it - a FIRST in the world. Even then dozens of Coalition aircraft were lost to surviving Iraqi SAM systems as the war progressed.

If Iraq in 1990 was so weak and easy to handle in a war, why several countries in the Middle East begged US to liberate Kuwait from Iraq? Not one country in the Islamic bloc was up to the task at the time? Perhaps not.

Hi,

The real test of US air force will come against PLAAF 10-15 years from now---.

Then they can claim the bragging rights---if they are victorious---.

This supposed "victory" against a third rate enemy with third rate weapons and strutting around is shameless---.

Shooting ducks in a pond that has a wire fence all around & above does not make you a lion hunter---.

Could you really tell how USAF will do in the next big war after the Vietnam War back in the 1970s? Honestly?

This is very disappointing post from somebody like you, bro.

In the next 10 - 15 years, USAF will be armed with aircraft that will be FAR MORE capable than what you see in the present. Do not forget this.

What do you have to say about the mighty VKS in Ukraine? Some members of the forum were really sold to Russian military hype but.... I still see some in denial and coming up with excuses for Russian failures in this conflict.

You need to understand how and why US continues to leap ahead from others in arms race and develop new tactics from time-to-time. Rhetoric only goes so far.

 

[PakFactor]

While Iran - Iraq war was a terrible conflict on the whole because it led to loss of a large number of lives on both sides (Muslim vs. Muslim), Iraq was able to build a much better war-machine with international support by the end of it. Iraq was at its finest in terms of being equipped for a war when Saddam Hussein decided to fight one with US-led forces over Kuwait in 1991. I have pointed out this fact in here.

I do not get the "depleted Iraq" part, therefore. This is baseless assumption. Let's not try to rewrite history to suit our narratives.

While I agree, based on that link, Iraq was well equipped, you have to look deeper into Russian equipment. A Pentagon report talked about the deficiencies of Russian equipment like armor sent to foreign countries that lacked proper plating and often used lower-grade material to compensate during production. So you were never getting what you paid for. Also, Iraq had its own in-house manufactured version of the T-72, which was of poor quality and didn't stand up to the Western tanks. Often tanks weren't used properly in maneuvering and instead as artillery pieces.

In addition, the terrain of Iraq wasn't favorable at all, with flat land and desert compared to the AfPak region.

One important aspect we must also consider is the structure of the armed forces; when I talk about depleting, it's not always the equipment but the manpower. During and after the conflict, Saddam murdered many ranking officers; under the pretext, they were gaining in popularity; I have personally met many Iraqis that escaped that vouch for that. In addition, he eliminated many trainers, so while they got leg-up equipment, they weren't as practical due to the brain drain within the armed forces.

 

[LeGenD]

While I agree, based on that link, Iraq was well equipped, you have to look deeper into Russian equipment. A Pentagon report talked about the deficiencies of Russian equipment like armor sent to foreign countries that lacked proper plating and often used lower-grade material to compensate during production. So you were never getting what you paid for. Also, Iraq had its own in-house manufactured version of the T-72, which was of poor quality and didn't stand up to the Western tanks. Often tanks weren't used properly in maneuvering and instead as artillery pieces.

In addition, the terrain of Iraq wasn't favorable at all, with flat land and desert compared to the AfPak region.

One important aspect we must also consider is the structure of the armed forces; when I talk about depleting, it's not always the equipment but the manpower. During and after the conflict, Saddam murdered many ranking officers; under the pretext, they were gaining in popularity; I have personally met many Iraqis that escaped that vouch for that. In addition, he eliminated many trainers, so while they got leg-up equipment, they weren't as practical due to the brain drain within the armed forces.

1. Quality of Russian armor is found to be questionable in several wars.

Russia’s Wars: Listing Equipment Losses During The First Chechen War (1994-1996)

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Nine Years of War — Documenting Syrian Arab Army's Armored Vehicles Losses - bellingcat

Translations:English (UK)Русский (Россия)Over the course of nine years of war, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has engaged in armed conflict against various opposition forces composed of domestic rebels and foreign volunteers, often equipped with light weapons. Given the sheer amount of open source...

www.bellingcat.com

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Quality of Iraqi armor is unfairly criticized in view of the above. It was good enough for regional battles but American M1A1 Abrams was on another level entirely.

2. Iraqi topography for reference:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-1-2-Topographic-map-of-Iraq_fig2_359230135

Iraqi desert environments are challenging to traverse due to sand thin like talcum powder that can ruin any vehicle's engine. Terrible dust storms is another problem to deal with.

Sand and dust storm events in Iraq

Iraq is one of the most affected countries in the Middle East concerning the occurrences of sand and dust storms. The frequency of the occurrence has increased drastically in the last decade and it is increasing continuously. The events of sand and dust storms are either regional or local. The...

www.scirp.org

Persistent Dust Storms Batter Iraq

At least eight major events have darkened skies and sickened people in the past six weeks.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

M1A1 Abrams worked in Iraqi desert environments due to installation of engine air filter(s). This fact was disclosed in a GAO report.

3. Saddam was a dictator after all, not surprised. But his Republican Guards Model is globally respected for its capabilities and battlefield achievements. Credit where due.

In 2016 Pakistan Responded to the Turkish Request for Pakistani Pilots:Air Vice Marshal Ghulam Abbas Ghumman

Saddam at the time had the strongest Arab army, no other Arab army came even close, but his army wasn't a match for Pakistan. Saddam had the 4th most powerful military in the world. It's the other way around. Pakistan's military was no match for Saddam's military.

defence.pk