Sudanese Air Force

[SABOT]

What do you guys think of the Sudanese Air Force being a threat to any UN sponsored Peacemaking Force?

They have received the following Aircraft, many of which are no longer airworthy:

10 X F-5E
02 X F-5F

12 X F-6 (MiG-19)
15 X F-7 (MiG-21)

04 X MiG-23B
10 X MiG-29SE
02 X MiG-29UB

12 X BO-105
11 X Agusta Bell 212

16 X Mi-35P Hind F
06 X Mi-24V Hind E

15 X IAR/SA-330 Puma

The real threat may be from the AA missiles that these aircraft may employ:

The F-5s would have AIM-9 Sidewinder and AGM-65 Maverick.

The MiG-29SE would have the AA-10 Alamo.  They also have AA-2 Atoll, AA-7 Apex, AA-8 Aphid, AA-11 Archer, AA-12 Adder, SA-7 Grail, AS-7 Kerry, PL-2/3 and PL-5 in their inventory.  The Hinds and Puma may also be fitted for HOT.  The Hinds would also have unguided S-5  57 mm rockets and S-8 80 mm rockets for Ground attack, not to mention AT-2 Swatter ATM.  They also have some AS-10 and AS-14.

The big question is how effective these may be and who actually controls them.  In many cases, these aircraft and systems are operated by mercenary forces/foreigners hired by the Sudanese.

 

[CougarKing]

Whether they will be a threat will also depend on the composition of the UN peacekeeper force and what kind of SAM/AA Defenses they will have.

However, I really doubt that the "Air Force" of Sudan will be much of a threat.  :

 

[aesop081]

However, I really doubt that the "Air Force" of Sudan will be much of a threat.  :

Realy ?...care to enlighten me

 

[CougarKing]

They have received the following Aircraft, many of which are no longer airworthy:

CDNAviator.

Most of these aircraft are no longer airworthy, as the initial poster stated. And I doubt whoever controls them has the spare parts or the fuel to put them back into the air,  let alone maintain them.

 

[Good2Golf]

CDNAviator.

Most of these aircraft are no longer airworthy, as the initial poster stated. And I doubt whoever controls them has the spare parts or the fuel to put them back into the air,  let alone maintain them.

You mean like how the Iranian's couldn't get parts for their F-14 Tomcats after 1978?  Oh, wait a second, they're still flying...it seems that where there's a will, there's a way...

G2G

 

[aesop081]

Guys stop....Couarshark is an expert.........even more than Cougarking

;D

 

[CougarKing]

Guys stop....Couarshark is an expert.........even more than Cougarking

;D

Oh well...some people really can get their speedos in a bundle.  >

Perhaps the African Union's contributor nations' contingents there already have some troops with Strelas or some kind of hand-held SAM.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

I am not an expert and these are just my thoughts
If the US wanted the UN or AU could have control of the air in under a week.
I do not understand why we do not make the country a no fly zone (besides what we allow of course).

 

[aesop081]

Oh well...some people really can get their speedos in a bundle.  >

Perhaps the African Union's contributor nations' contingents there already have some troops with Strelas or some kind of hand-held SAM.

We had to supply them with Armoured vehicles.........you think the brought SAMs ?

:brickwall:

 

[CougarKing]

We had to supply them with Armoured vehicles.........you think the brought SAMs ?

:brickwall:

Anything could be on the black market nowadays- including those Strela hand-held fired SAMs- they're cheaper than buying a Russian Tungushka or a Chinese HQ-7 SAM vehicle!

Do you recall that incident a few years ago  (after 9/11 of course) when an airliner taking off from some central African nation narrowly missed a SAM round fired by a mysterious attacker?

Anyways, I'd better stop before that head of yours can't take anymore banging on the wall.  ;D

 

[SABOT]

Any aircraft flying in the grass is a threat to unarmed Transports.  Air Superiority doesn't mean that the skies are safe.  Air Supremacy may.  This year they are still supposed to have many of their aircraft in an operational state.  Even things like the K-8 Trainer are a threat.  Preconceptions are dangerous.  CougarShark, are you sure that there is no threat, or is it just your opinion that it is a Third World Air Force and not worthy of a second thought?  Cold War, and later, aircraft and foreign pilots are not in your equations?

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

x

 

[Centurian1985]

What do you guys think of the Sudanese Air Force being a threat to any UN sponsored Peacemaking Force?

The big question is how effective these may be and who actually controls them.  In many cases, these aircraft and systems are operated by mercenary forces/foreigners hired by the Sudanese.

Im curious as to why you asked the question, when you seemed to have answered it on your own already. 

But why even consider the air force element?  Based on past 'peacemaking' operations, air force elements do not have 'plausible deniability' and as such pose a much lower threat to peacemaking forces than the available ground forces.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering China is backing Sudan, you can bet that some of those "oil workers & security guards" happen to have pilot wings and provide those services in exchange for access to Sudan's oil. I doubt China will allow their nationals to directly attack UN forces, but would likely be involved in the background. There would be enough Indian and Russian trained pilot mercenaries to do the dirty work, not to mention Sudnaese pilots.

 

[3rd Herd]

However, I really doubt that the "Air Force" of Sudan will be much of a threat.  :

From the depths of history:

The Government of Sudan, the only party in the conflict capable of conducting aerial bombardment, has not engaged in aerial bombardment in southern Sudan since it signed the October 15, 2002 MOU. However, it used helicopter gunships during its 2003 ground offensive in Western Upper Nile. Aerial bombardment had been, for many years, a major feature of the government's actions in the south. During the year 2002, aerial bombardment of civilian and military targets was heavily employed in Equatoria in June, apparently in anticipation of an SPLM/A offensive, and throughout southern Sudan in September, after the SPLM/A captured Torit. Some of the most deadly use of aerial bombardment and helicopter gunships occurred during the first half of 2002 in Western Upper Nile. According to reports from various sources of varying reliability, there were approximately 85 instances of aerial bombardment by fixed-wing aircraft in the year 2002, of which approximately 35 were reported to have caused human casualties, resulting in an estimated 200 civilians killed. In many cases of aerial bombardment, it is difficult to determine to what extent civilians were deliberately targeted, harmed as a consequence of indiscriminate bombing, or accidentally harmed in the course of an attack specifically directed against a military target. There are indications that aerial bombardment had also been used to terrorize civilian populations even when there are no direct casualties. It is clear that a very much higher number of civilians were killed as a result of ground offensives. Section 8 of the Act specifically requires reporting on aerial bombardment. The Department has provided a separate report responding to Section 8(3), which should be read in conjunction with this report. (Sudan Peace Act Report, Released by the Department of State April 21, 2003)

CHINESE AIRCRAFT DELIVERED:The Sudanese army has taken delivery recently of between fifteen and twenty A-5M ground-attack aircraft of
Chinese manufacture, thanks to financing by Iran,' reports    Indian Ocean Newsletter   , citing `reliable information obtained by    ION  '.

`Pilots were trained in China, Iran and Sudan, Pakistani instructors also participated in the training especially on the Deizfoul Base in southern Iran, Pakistan is the only country (apart from China) to be equipped with this type of aircraft. `The A5-M is a supersonic plane which is well suited to the terrain of southern Sudan: it is equipped with radar and direct-vision sights capable of firing several missiles and rockets simultaneously.'

ION    comments: `This reinforcement of Sudan's air force correspondsto an in-depth restructuring of the army and the police on the Iranian
model which was introduced at the end of October when General Hassan Abd al-Rahman was appointed defence minister.

In August 2004, the Defence Ministry of Sudan announced that they planned to acquire a further 12 MiG-29 aircraft, converting options under a contract for ten fighters placed in 2002. Deliveries on the original contract concluded in July 2004. "It is unlikely that the Sudanese air force can operate the advanced MiG-29 Fulcrums, raising the possibility that Moscow will also supply mercenary pilots to fly the fourth-generation fighter jets. Russia has frequently been accused of providing mercenary pilots to other nearby African client states. In 2000, Eritrea stated that Moscow supplied a large number of mercenary pilots to neighboring rival Ethiopia. The Eritrean diplomatic complaint to Moscow included a list, naming the Russian mercenaries working for Ethiopia." (See Russian MiGs in Sudan by Charles R. Smith, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/4/155909.shtml)


And as usual source information is always greatfully appreciated.

 

[CougarKing]

Alright, I stand corrected.

 

[3rd Herd]

As for the vulnerability of UN peacekeepers in the "bush countries". Here is an example from the Ivory Coast involving French peacekeepers.

"At least one Ivorian Sukhoi 25 bomber attacked a position of France's Unicorn peacekeeping force in the rebel stronghold of Bouake at 1300 local time (1300 GMT) on Saturday. Eight French soldiers were killed immediately along with an American, believed to have been a missionary, while 23 soldiers were injured and evacuated to Abidjan. A ninth soldier later died of his wounds."(Ivory Coast seethes after attack). "The government began bombing rebel targets in the north on 4 November, but the French intervened swiftly after to disable its combat aircraft after Russian and Ukranian mercenary pilots bombed a French military base in the rebel capital Bouake,................ "(UN allows Gbagbo to repair damaged planes) .

However, "President Laurent Gbagbo's armed forces have begun transferring to Abidjan four attack aircraft damaged by French peacekeepers during a flare-up of hostilities in November in order to repair them, sparking fears of a resumption of hostilities among city residents." "The United Nations, which imposed an international arms embargo on Cote d'Ivoire in November, said it had given its permission for the move. It added that the planes would be kept under UN supervision at Abidjan airport." ""[Gbagbo] is authorised to repair the planes, but he can't rearm them? That's like allowing somebody to go fishing and then saying that he can't eat the fish that he has caught," he said."(UN allows)

A peruse of several sites seem to advance the doctrine of establishing a "no fly zone" to protect UN peacekeepers in order to keep alive the idealism of "lightly armed" troops. In regard to the Sudan issue there is the problem of where to locate the mecanhisms necessary to enforce the zone. In "Sudan: A No Fly Zone" British PM Tony Blair suggests  the zone would be inforced by UK and US aircraft. But as mentioned earlier in this thread China would not back any UN plan which would see it's oil supplies affected. Further, is the danger of accidental attacks of Chinese personal and equipment in the enforcement of said no fly zone. As Englin points out "Establishing a no-fly zone against an advanced, hostile Sudanese air force would almost certainly require offensive attacks on Sudan's airfields, aircraft, and command and control system." The US Senator a Mr. Biden quotes a Washington Post editorial in that "that enforcing the no-fly zone in Darfur would require “one squadron of 12 to 18 fighter aircraft backed up by 4 AWAC planes,” and cites a retired Air Force general as their source for believing such. "(Biden)

Expanding the operation to a full NATO mission would include France. In respect that "French air bases west of Sudan in Chad and French and U.S. bases east of Sudan in Djibouti are well situated to support no-fly zone operations, as are American bases in Saudi Arabia, and aircraft carriers in the Red Sea. Using systems and techniques proven over Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, intervention force pilots could successfully keep Sudan's warplanes and helicopters out of Darfur--but they should be prepared to fight a modern enemy if Sudan chooses to defend its airspace. (Englin) But, "France has shown itself willing to employ its Chad-based forces against Sudanese backed rebels in the Central African Republic, another former colony. Yet it has not yet pronounced its willingness to host a NATO no-fly zone at its bases in Abeche and N’Djamena."(Bassuener) In closing here are some of the challenges brought forth by Paul Smyth:
Among the daunting challenges to enforcing a No Fly Zone over Darfur:

[1] Basing for enforcement, in-flight refueling, and reconnaissance aircraft. If land-based, the French airbase at Abéché, eastern Chad, offers the only promising possibility. But it would need to be expanded and lengthened to accommodate some of the aircraft involved. Moreover, it would require the assistance of the French, which has conspicuously not been offered. It would also require the agreement of Chadian President Idriss Déby. This now seems extremely unlikely in light of Déby’s recent decision to deny access to an international protection force to eastern Chad, after previously signaling that he favored such deployment. Certainly Khartoum would hold Déby responsible should a substantial air operation be based out of Chad.

The only alternative route that did not infringe upon the national airspace of Egypt or Libya would require carrier-basing in the Red Sea for combat aircraft. Flights would have to be through (hostile) Sudanese airspace, and this would very significantly increase the following:

*Re-fueling needs for the rotating squadrons of military jets enforcing the No Fly Zone and for the reconnaissance aircraft guiding these jets;

*Travel time to and from the site to be patrolled;

*Overall resources, including long-term deployment of at least one aircraft carrier in waters near wary or even hostile countries in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It is perhaps worth noting that the USS Cole was attacked by al-Qaida operatives while in port in Yemen in 2000, and that a federal judge yesterday (March 15, 2007) found Khartoum significantly responsible for this event:




Source:

Joesph Biden:Floor Statement: A NATO-Enforced No-Fly Zone in the Darfur Region of Sudan http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234435

Bassuener, Kurt "Darfur No-Fly Update: Window of Opportunity" http://zope06.v.servelocity.net/hjs/sections/africa/document.2006-12-30.9037614799

Englin, David L., "Plan of Action" DAILY EXPRESS DAILY EXPRESS http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=englin080604

Ivory Coast seethes after attack http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3989127.stm

Reeves, Eric, "Ban Ki-Moon on Sudan’s response to UN force in Darfur: "Not satisfactory" http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article20825

SUDAN: No-Fly Zone Suggested: http://docstore.ingenta.com/cgi-bin/ds_deliver/1/u/d/ISIS/36497854.1/bpl/arbp/2007/00000043/00000012/art00043/BE776520BB20C6CB117510982758A4AF2D70A5F263.pdf?link=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/error/delivery&format=pdf

UN allows Gbagbo to repair damaged planes http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/01/mil-050124-irin02.htm

 

[Hardrations]

I remember in the Biafran/Nigerian conflict, that there was a Swedish gent who supplied and flew a sports  aircraft. He armed it with bombs and I think light weapons. This caused a lot of concern on the Nigerian side. So I would think with all the outdated fighting aircraft out there, that one doesn't really need to go supersonic, subsonic, or just generally real fast.

Here is small part of an article I found on this:

In an attempt to expand their market MFI had produced a military trainer version of the basic MFI-9 sporting aircraft. The resultant MFI-9B turned out to be capable of carrying surprisingly heavy ordinance loads on under wing hard points despite its light construction and not so formidable appearance. The Swedish air force had evaluated a batch of twelve MFI-9B's and rejected them as unsuitable for military service. These 12 aircraft evaluated by the SAF had been placed in storage and were now looking for a buyer. It looked like MFI's gamble on the military market had turned out to be a disaste, but things were about to change.

It had occurred to Carl Gustav von Rosen that in a "low intensity conflict" small piston engine aircraft, even a featherweight like the MFI-9B, is quite capable of making a differencehttp

://www.brushfirewars.org/aircraft/mfi_9b_biafran/mfi_9b_biafran_1.htm


It did, but not enough to turn things in favour of the Biafrans.

 

[time expired]

What UN forces are we talking about?.Did I miss something?.If something of this nature does
happen,which I doubt,maybe we should send our F18s after they not doing much right now and
I think they would look good in light blue with maybe a little pink as contrast.
                                  Regards

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I think they would look good in light blue with maybe a little pink as contrast.
                                  Regards

Eh?  Do you mean like a Pink Panther?