06.01.2013 Views

National Experiences - British Commission for Military History

National Experiences - British Commission for Military History

National Experiences - British Commission for Military History

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

daV i d iV r y *<br />

The Air Arm during the Lebanon War 1982<br />

Background<br />

Israele<br />

As a preface to direct reference to the use of air power in 1982, one should understand<br />

several trans<strong>for</strong>mations that the Israel Air Force experienced in the field<br />

of air warfare, organization and weapons, in order to better analyze the war and its<br />

results. The destruction of air <strong>for</strong>ces on the ground within a few hours during the<br />

Six Day War (1967), and the air combat achievements, were both an unprecedented<br />

achievement, which also has mixed results because it led to great expectations from<br />

the Israel Air Force.<br />

On the other hand, the defeated air <strong>for</strong>ces learned many lessons and implemented<br />

them, so it was impossible to repeat the results. Shielded shelters were built <strong>for</strong><br />

aircraft that exceeded their number, additional runways were built and many emergency<br />

runways were prepared. All this was part of passive defense.<br />

The anti-a/c defense got a huge leverage, guns but mainly missile. The surfaceto-air<br />

missile (SAM) was a leap <strong>for</strong>ward when the Soviet doctrine of operating a<br />

strenuous independent arm, the divisions of SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 batteries were the<br />

massive foundation of the doctrine, and thousands of SA-7 missiles were available<br />

in almost any unit or military facility.<br />

During the War of Attrition (1968-1970), this concept was leveraged and the Israel<br />

Air Force found itself in August 1970 with a cease fire treaty, when the Egyptian<br />

army had advanced its surface-to-air missiles right up to the canal, contrary to the<br />

agreement, but Israel had to restrain itself because it did not have a decisive answer<br />

to surface-to-air missiles. As part of the means that the IAF had, it developed attack<br />

methods and war doctrine, including the use of air power in the presence of surfaceto-air<br />

missiles. EW methods were also acquired from the U.S., means that were<br />

developed during the Vietnam War.<br />

We arrived at the Yom Kippur War in 1973, after improving the attack tactics and<br />

EW capability; however, we did not succeed in pushing <strong>for</strong>ward the development of<br />

weapons to destroy surface-to-air missiles, thus losing the air freedom of action we<br />

were used to, and which the IDF ground <strong>for</strong>ces were used to.<br />

In the operation plans prior to the Yom Kippur War, the IAF demanded 48 hours<br />

to launch air power against surface-to-air missiles sites and air bases, thus assuring<br />

air superiority to continue fighting. The IDF staff level was sympathetic to this;<br />

however reality in the 1973 war did not enable such luxury. The IAF was required<br />

* M.Gen., <strong>for</strong>mer Chief of the IDF Air Force.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!