War with Syria and the Mig 29

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There's a device called a Tomahawk cruise missile. There are a couple of subs that carry around 150 ot the things each. If you target the runways and taxi ways of the few Syrian airports that can operate Mig-29s, this problem goes away.

You have hit the nail on the head.

In the very, very unlikely chance that NATO is unleashed against Syria you can expect total domination the moment the Syrian airforce, air defence and command structures are flattened by cruise missiles from subs, ships and planes - Tomahalk, Stormshadow, Apache et al. It's all the same in that it is "no risk destruction".

Name one incident in the last three to four decades where ex Soviet / Russian kit has stood up to NATO and won. The doctrine of NATO against these tin pot dictatorships has been to destroy the capability to resist.

Regards

reply to post by JIMC5499


No point in having an airforce then is there?

reply to post by dashdespatch


The Syrian airforce is for use against the Syrian people. It's about maintaining order, not projecting power or even national defence; that's why they have a sophisticated air defence system. It's just that it's not sophisticated enough to defend against a concerted effort by NATO members.

It's not just about the planes it's mostly also about the pilots.During Gulf War 2 an Iraqi pilot crashed himself into the ground when he was being chased by a US fighter.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


So the lebanon war was a war against the syrian people?

reply to post by JIMC5499


Tomahawks can be shot down

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Saddom refused to deploy his airforce and buried it in the desert instead

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There's a device called a Tomahawk cruise missile. There are a couple of subs that carry around 150 ot the things each. If you target the runways and taxi ways of the few Syrian airports that can operate Mig-29s, this problem goes away.

What if they have sufficient anti missile capacity? I really don't know if they do, but if we armchair generals can think of this tactic, I'm sure generals on both sides have considered it and possibly developed countermeasures. They could have anti missile missiles dedicated to countering cruise missiles. I don't know if they would have enough of them to fully stave off such a barrage though. If they somehow managed to acquire point defense lasers similar to the THEL then that would have a major impact on their ability to defend an area from missile strikes. That is a massive if however.

You also have pointed out an advantage that VTOL jets would have against 4G jets. They would be able to lift off and land without a runway. However, that would reduce their range as I believe it takes more fuel to do this.

What if the russians have given them somthing like this?

rixco.multiply.com...

seems to me all planes have to land sometime...so i don't think it would come down to to many dogfight scenarios do any of you?...I mean really.....why would they not be taken out on the ground as much as poossible.....runways and airports would be targeted right awy.....usual modus operandi.

The Syrian air Force doesn't have too good of a track record.

Summary of F-15 Combat Action

Sure some Tomahawks will be shot down. What will that do in the long run? Syria only has a limited amount of missiles and ammunition. When they use that up, what do they do? Iraq was supposed to have a good air defence system, look at what happened to it. If the Syrian Air Force decides to come out and play, I have one thing to say......................PULL!

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Orwells Ghost

 

So the lebanon war was a war against the syrian people?

No, it wasn't, but much like it's own people, Syria did not need Migs to walk over the PLO and LNM. Syria's Mig's are no more than weapons of terror and symbols of the ruling faction's prestige.

Syria is geographically surrounded by her enemies. NATO has more and better ordinance, experience, tactics and training. Asymmetrical warfare is all Syria can hope to maintain against those odds. In the event of a NATO "intervention", Assad would most likely take a page from Saddam's book and try to send all of his Migs straight to Iran.

I looked but can't find the stats on MIG - 29 losses in one complete place.

However; I believe about 6 were shot down in by US forces in the 1991 war (the rest were bombed on the ground or fled to Iran). I think the RAF got 1 or 2 as well.

I beleive another 4 or so were shot down over Yugoslovia/Bosnia in the late 90s.

I think Israel has shot down 2.

It is beleived 1, perhaps 2 (and possibly 3) US/Allied aircraft were brought down by the MIG 29 over Bosnia and Iraq.

The MIG 29 is a great aircraft. But in most of the third world air forces the pilots don't get near the training and flight time as a Western Pilot. They also don't have the support/infrastructure/and air control most western forces do.

Syrian MIG 29s (and anything else they send up) will be going straight down.

Im not denying that a nato force is bound. to be victorious (unless russia gets involved) the point of my post is how would we fare in direct combat with the mig 29
Also what if greek spanish italian crew were used no offence bit they are a bit untried in combat

reply to post by dashdespatch


Israel buzzed Assad's Presidential Palace on the Coast north of Lebanon and Syria didn't do anything about it. The Syrian air force just isn't combat trained and tested, they will get wiped out. They don't want to die defending a dying regime, I seriously doubt they will even take to the skies should real fighting take place.

www.nysun.com... alace-aim-to-save/35243/

Wait! Found some info.

www.acig.org...

This shows 8 kills by the US of MIG 29's in Desert Storm and 5 at this source.

www.rjlee.org...

www.rjlee.org...

and 5 in 1999 (Bosnia)




So 10 to 13 MIG 29's brought down by the US or Western forces.

The link on the first site has Iraqi kills since 1967. They claim several western aircraft shot down in 1991. However; the notes say none were substantiated.

The discovery of Capt Scott Spiecher's F-18 in Iraq along with other research (including other F-18 pilots and the AWACS crew) it is beleive his aircraft might have been shot down by an Iraqi MIG-25, but not a 29.

reply to post by JIMC5499


You're probably right that it would be a pretty one sided engagement. It comes down to NATO having more and better stuff than them, as well as much more highly trained and motivated individuals using that stuff.

I wouldn't underestimate the Syrian air force. If they manage to get their planes off the ground before they're bombed then they could do some real damage. It all comes down to the pilots ability, which we can't measure until we actually see them in action. Not to mention that Russia has delivered weaponry to Syria and provided training for years now, and has only escalated these deliveries during the last year or so. Gaddafi did not have the tools at his disposal that Assad does and it took months to get rid of him. Similar action in Syria would most likely result in western losses, perhaps even significant (double digits).

Originally posted by dashdespatch
(unless russia gets involved)

What makes you think that Russia will get involved? As far as I know, they are cooperating with the sanctions against Syria.

I get a kick out of these people who think that Russia HAS the capability to get involved. Their ships are rusting at their piers, their aircraft are stuck in their hangars, if they have hangars. The only new tech that they are working on is meant to be EXPORTED to other countries for sale.

reply to post by JIMC5499



They probably say similar things about the usa "all f22 raptors grounded due to all oxygen system failures" its all propaganda bs from all sides