Iraqi Jets Buried in Sand

[jegs2]

From this article:

Search teams, some hunting for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, found dozens of fighter jets from Iraq's air force buried beneath the sands, U.S. officials say.

Surprise, surprise -- who'd a thunk it! Gee, wonder if that is what happened to the missing WMD as well....

[jegs2]

Okay, see someone barely beat me to the story. I'll add this:

"The active deception program is truly amazing once you get inside it," Kay said. "We have people who participated in deceiving U.N. inspectors now telling us how they did it."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Okay, see someone barely beat me to the story. I'll add this:

"The active deception program is truly amazing once you get inside it," Kay said. "We have people who participated in deceiving U.N. inspectors now telling us how they did it."

This really is quite impressive. I wonder if we'll start finding conventional military equipment, as well--perhaps all of that stuff with which Saddam had been supposedly rebuilding his forces, instead gone straight into "storage" under the desert, waiting for the moment when the UN scrutiny would be gone, and he could again pursue his ambitions against other Arab countries. He must have known he couldn't face the US military, so he relied on the UN--gambled and lost.

[Vympel]

At least one Cold War-era MiG-25 interceptor was found when searchers saw the tops of its twin tail fins poking up from the sands, said one Pentagon official familiar with the hunt. He said search teams have found several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad.

The Iraqis hid aircraft near an airfield as a camoflage measure. Big whoop. The Serbs employed similar camoflage and decoy techniques as detailed in this article. And here's how well they dug them too:

Various officials differed in opinion as to whether the buried aircraft could ever fly again. Many of the planes were buried intact with minimal efforts to protect them from the sand.

That's some elaborate campaign of deception they got going there. Why, they were so well hidden, that they saw the fins sticking out through the sand.

"The active deception program is truly amazing once you get inside it," Kay said. "We have people who participated in deceiving U.N. inspectors now telling us how they did it."

Yeah, sure they do. And we'll hear all about it in six months, and at the same time, he admits they have no smoking gun. Why? Because the administration has already backed off significantly from it's prewar claims and is trying to change the criteria:

Question: There's a sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, nonexistent evidence. And I'm just wondering, sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that way.

Bush: ....In order to placate the critics and the cynics about the intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program.

A weapons program? That's not what Bush before the war had said he believed that Saddam possessed. Back then, he referred to "massive" stockpiles of WMDs maintained by Hussein (who could at any moment slip one of his WMDs to his close friends in al Qaeda). A program is much different from an arsenal. A program might include research and development but not production. In fact, that increasingly seems to be what was going on in Iraq. A number of former officials of the Hussein government have claimed since the war that Hussein had ordered the continuation of a covert R&D effort but had not instructed his WMD teams to manufacture actual weapons. The goal apparently was to be ready to roll if UN sanctions were lifted or if Hussein found himself at war with a regional foe, say Iran. A weapons program under Hussein's control would have eben worrisome, but not as immediately troubling as the existence of weapons that could be used or transferred. If the assertions of these Iraqis turn out to be true, that would suggest that the inspections-and-sanction campaign against Iraq had succeeded in constraining and containing Hussein.

In responding to this question, Bush was rewriting history--which he frequently accuses his critics of doing--and lowering the bar. It presumably will be far easier for the WMD hunters in Iraq to uncover evidence of weapons programs than of actual weapons. If they do locate proof of covert R&D projects, Bush, no doubt, will say, Told you so. But no, he did not. He said weapons. He said it over and over. What was the evidence stockpiles existed? Where is the evidence now?

A weapons program can't be weaponized. A weapons program can't be used in 45 minutes. A weapons program can't be bought from Niger. A weapons program can't be used against his neighbours. And it can't be given to terrorists .. oh but what? There's more:

Question: Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaeda were a key part of your justification for war. Yet, your own intelligence report, the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], defined it as--quote "low confidence that Saddam would give weapons to al Qaeda." Were those links exaggerated to justify war? Or can you finally offer us some definitive evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda terrorists?

Bush: Yes, I think, first of all, remember I just said we've been there for 90 days since the cessation of major military operations. Now, I know in our world where news comes and goes and there's this kind of instant--instant news and you must have done this, you must do that yesterday, that there's a level of frustration by some in the media. I'm not suggesting you're frustrated. You don't look frustrated to me at all. But it's going to take time for us to gather the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles of documents that we have uncovered.

Hold on. The question was not what new evidence Bush had to back up his previous allegations. The question was whether those earlier allegations had been supported by any evidence when Bush was using them to rally popular support for war. For months prior to the invasion, Bush repeatedly charged that Saddam Hussein was directly in cahoots with al Qaeda. That was supposedly why the Iraqi dictator could be considered a direct and imminent threat to the United States. In November 2002, Bush claimed that Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. In February 2003, he said that Hussein was "harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Days before the invasion, Dick Cheney cited Hussein's "long-standing relationship" with al Qaeda.

What intelligence did Bush and Cheney have to make such alarming statements? That's the evidence the reporter was asking about. The indications so far are that Bush had bupkis. Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence, said a few weeks ago that the agency prior to the war had uncovered no proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Hussein's government. Representative Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence panel, which is conducting its own inquiry, has noted that the intelligence produced before the war contradicted Bush's claim of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. And The Washington Post has reported that the October 2002 NIE maintained there was no intelligence showing a clear connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's outfit. (The White House has released eight pages of that 90-page report, but not--fro some reason--the pages on this topic.)

Back to the original question: can you, Mr. President, offer any evidence to support those inflammatory assertions you made before the war? At the press conference, Bush did not respond directly. Instead, he offered a weasel-worded answer about the ongoing search for information in Iraq and the need to be patient. But he should already have evidence to cite because he already has made the charge. It was so Red Queenish ("sentence first--verdict afterward"), except Bush's philosophy is, allegation first--evidence afterward. Asked to prove he had not lied to the public before the war, Bush would--or could--not do so.

And the worst thing of all is that the mainstream press lets him get away with this bullshit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Reposting Scotsman Article here for confirmation

[Iceberg]

If they take the same effort to protect their CBWs (assuming they actually had any viable CBWs and not just "programs") from the sand that they did to protect these MiGs, they'd have been just as useless.

[Iceberg]

Such a waste of perfectly good airplanes.

[Vympel]

Such a waste of perfectly good airplanes.

I hold out hope that the new Iraqi government (if it lasts) will contract RSK MiG, Dassault and Sukhoi to perform deep refurbishment/upgrade- it'd be expensive, but it's not like buying brand new ones would be cheaper.

[MKSheppard]

I hold out hope that the new Iraqi government (if it lasts) will contract RSK MiG, Dassault and Sukhoi to perform deep refurbishment/upgrade- it'd be expensive, but it's not like buying brand new ones would be cheaper.

It's not like they've been sitting out in the humid air of Southeast Asia for years

[TrailerParkJawa]

Do you think its possible this decision was made by local commanders to avoid getting bombed? They know the planes would never fly again, but not flying is better than being cut in half by a cluster bomb or strafing A-10.

[Axis Kast]

More evidence that Iraqi deceptions could have – and did – easily escape satellite detection. It’s also interesting that Military.com drops this little tidbit:

The MiGs had escaped detection during the coalition bombing campaign. Some were buried or hidden under trees or covered with camouflage sheets. Aircraft destroyed in prior wars were littered across the airfield to make it more difficult for bombers to choose their targets.

It certainly seems as if those who have insisted that Iraq had the potential to deceive inspectors and observers with relative ease before the Coalition occupation have been vindicated once more.

That's some elaborate campaign of deception they got going there. Why, they were so well hidden, that they saw the fins sticking out through the sand.

Considering that (A) this equipment was missed in pre-war stages, and (B) it took visual confirmation to uncover the deception in the first place, the Iraqis deserve a bit of credit.

Various officials differed in opinion as to whether the buried aircraft could ever fly again. Many of the planes were buried intact with minimal efforts to protect them from the sand.

A warplane is a fairly large and bulky item. Comparing weather-proofing such metal beasts to the long-term, “safe” storage of gas canisters and bacteria cultures is comparing apples to oranges.

[Darth Fanboy]

Such a waste of perfectly good airplanes.

They wouldn't be perfectly good after and Iraqi pilot got behind the controls and decided to take on the USAF

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Such a waste of perfectly good airplanes.

Not really. The desert is an excellent preservative of aircraft--a lot of vintage aircraft flying in the US today were sitting in boneyards in the southwest for decades before being restored, and were in much worse shape than these have to be in. Vympel is right; it would be cheaper, for the quality of aircraft, to restore these (and they should be quite restorable), than to buy new ones.

Furthermore, in some cases I would not be surprised if, after cleaning the sand out, they would actually be flyable. Of course, "cleaning the sand out" is a rather huge undertaking in this case, and would certainly involve a refit as part of it--but in that I mean something the Iraqis might have been able to do themselves, at least on some of the aircraft. Certainly something that Chinese contractors might have been able to accomplish, though not delivering the same quality nor capability as the firms he proposes.

[Vympel]

It certainly seems as if those who have insisted that Iraq had the potential to deceive inspectors and observers with relative ease before the Coalition occupation have been vindicated once more.

Funny, I was unaware UN inspectors gave two shits about Iraq's airforce

Considering that (A) this equipment was missed in pre-war stages,

Do you know when they were hidden?

and (B) it took visual confirmation to uncover the deception in the first place, the Iraqis deserve a bit of credit.

The deception was known during the war- if you watched the news, you'd see that CENTCOM commented when showing airstrike videos that the Iraqis were doing what military.com purports- i.e. hiding equipment under trees, camoflage netting, and dispersing perfectly good planes elsewhere, some of which were destroyed. It complicated the bombing campaign because it stuffed up BDA, they weren't totally oblivious to what the Iraqis were doing.

[Axis Kast]

Funny, I was unaware UN inspectors gave two shits about Iraq's airforce.

Who said the inspectors or observers had to belong to the United Nations? Or don’t you want to admit that the United States spent a hell of a lot of time gathering intelligence in Iraq before we actually launched our invasion?

Do you know when they were hidden?

Should that matter? You insisted that given the level of scrutiny under which Iraq lay for so long, satellites should have been sufficient to detect most ruses and underground chambers. Apparently – even if we go back as far as 1991 -, you were wrong.

The deception was known during the war- if you watched the news, you'd see that CENTCOM commented when showing airstrike videos that the Iraqis were doing what military.com purports- i.e. hiding equipment under trees, camoflage netting, and dispersing perfectly good planes elsewhere, some of which were destroyed. It complicated the bombing campaign because it stuffed up BDA, they weren't totally oblivious to what the Iraqis were doing.

There’s a world of difference, Vympel, between realizing the Iraqis are using a tactic at their disposal and then going out and digging up everything they managed to hide. You’ll no doubt have noticed that the article stated that inspectors “stumbled” across the caché after having made visual confirmation.

Satellites aren’t infallible, Vympel. Looks like there was more wiggle room for Iraq than you well thought.

Oh, and before I forget, this also begs further scrutiny of the, “Saddam must have destroyed his weapons unilaterally before the current inspections,” argument. Even people like Scott Ritter confirmed that they hadn’t managed to locate every single known culture, bomb, or piece of equipment in Hussein’s arsenal when UNMOVIC was ejected in 1998. You have always been a huge fan of the negative argument: if we can’t find them now, he must have done away with them. But then again, you’ve never given a satisfactory answer other than, “Pride!” when asked why Baghdad wouldn’t have seen fit to put forth some kind of physical evidence or documentation about their disposal program. Now that we see that buried objects can go unnoticed by the United States and Great Britain however, we have to ask another question: “Did Hussein toss his weapons in a hole in the desert?” That would still substantiate all the accusations levied by Bush – even if the majority of items were haphazardly done away with.

[Sea Skimmer]

Funny, I was unaware UN inspectors gave two shits about Iraq's airforce

Actually they did because it was the most common Iraqi delivery system for chemical weapons and had a huge stock of chemical bombs, more recently they where looking a its various drone programs.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Screw repairing them, just sell them to some desperate third world army for the price of an intact fighter, and use the money to get a new air force.

[EmperorSolo51]

Wasn't Iraq banned from having an airforce as part of the 1991 cease-fire agreement?

[Axis Kast]

Not that I'm aware of. They've been sending them up - or rather, they sent then up - since 1991 to challenge the NFZ. If it were a radical violation, we'd have made noise about it over the past decade - especially in 1998 and again last year.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wasn't Iraq banned from having an airforce as part of the 1991 cease-fire agreement?

No, though limits where placed on the range of UAV's and long range bombers where banned as I recall.

[Vympel]

Actually they did because it was the most common Iraqi delivery system for chemical weapons and had a huge stock of chemical bombs, more recently they where looking a its various drone programs.

It's one drone program- the inspectors never reported that Iraq's air force was 'missing' so to speak, and that would be incredibly easy to verify (just count the planes and compare them to the OOB)- these aircraft were dispersed in the course of the war.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

[

No, though limits where placed on the range of UAV's and long range bombers where banned as I recall.

Would an Su-24 or Tu-22 count?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's one drone program- the inspectors never reported that Iraq's air force was 'missing' so to speak, and that would be incredibly easy to verify (just count the planes and compare them to the OOB)- these aircraft were dispersed in the course of the war.

Actually, it does appear that the Iraqi Air Force, somehow or another, was reduced from around 300-400 aircraft after the Gulf War to 90 in the buildup to the invasion, at least according to the tallies of independent observers (orbat.com had several articles on this). It was theorized at the time that most of the aircraft simply were cannibalized for spare parts, or abandoned. There may be a more esoteric answer under the deserts, however.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

was reduced from around 300-400 aircraft after the Gulf War

And yes, that would be a total figure.

[Vympel]

Would an Su-24 or Tu-22 count?

I don't know if there was a long range bomber provision- the Tu-22 with it's IFR probe would definitely qualify, but the Su-24 ... it definitely comes under the bomber category and depending on flight profile/warload it can fly pretty far (1,000km+ with a warload). 99% of the Su-24s all escaped to Iran anyway. I'm sure Iran was glad to have them.

Actually, it does appear that the Iraqi Air Force, somehow or another, was reduced from around 300-400 aircraft after the Gulf War to 90 in the buildup to the invasion, at least according to the tallies of independent observers (orbat.com had several articles on this). It was theorized at the time that most of the aircraft simply were cannibalized for spare parts, or abandoned. There may be a more esoteric answer under the deserts, however.

Well, the wrecks that they littered around the airfields to distract attention from the nearby aircraft they hid in relaitve plain sight (hiding a plane in a cemeterary for example) had to come from somewhere. 300-400 aircraft sounds awfully high- does that factor in the aircraft that went to Iran, for example?

Globalsecurity figures

- 4 bombers
- 96 fighter/attack
- 85 fighters
- 5 recon (MiG-25R and MiG-21)