War with Syria and the Mig 29, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 30-5-2012 @ 08:27 AM by dashdespatch

just wondered if the west went to war or on some "peacekeeping" mission in syria how well the wests aircraft would cope with the syrian airforce (and its surface to air system) in its own country especially its mig 29s?

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 08:32 AM by ollncasino

Originally posted by dashdespatch
just wondered if the west went to war or on some "peacekeeping" mission in syria how well the wests aircraft would cope with the syrian airforce (and its surface to air system) in its own country especially its mig 29s?

Its a very good dog fighter but it is markedly outclassed by the Raptor (superior beyond visual combat ability) and the Eurofighter (also superb dog fighter and superior beyond visual combat ability).

I wouldn't under-estimate it though.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 08:42 AM by Timely

reply to post by dashdespatch

If push comes to shove, I can't see Nato not having the wherewithal to make fairly short thrift of things.

Lets face it, the Mig 29 has been the benchmark, as such, anything designed with this in mind should excel.

Then consider sheer numbers ... overwhelming.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 08:47 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by ollncasino

Would they risk using the f22 they have never used it in a combat situation before

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 08:48 AM by Frankel

reply to post by dashdespatch

The Soviet Union exported MiG-29s to several countries. Because 4th-generation fighter jets require the pilots to have extensive training, air-defense infrastructure, and constant maintenance and upgrades, MiG-29s have had mixed operational history with different air forces.[16]
[edit]

I don't generally see them being as much of a problem say if we were to be going up against the Russians with them, I don't foresee the pilots being as well trained as NATO but that's JMO rather than fact.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 08:49 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by Timely

It is possible the russians could supply more aircraft. anyway nobody knows how many they have to start with they are very secretive

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 08:57 AM by Frankel

reply to post by dashdespatch

en.wikipedia.org...

There are reports that on 14 September 2001 two Syrian Air Force MiG-29s were shot down by two IDF/AF F-15C while the MiGs were intercepting an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of Lebanon. However, both Syria and Israel deny that this occurred.

Interesting if the above attually happened but it is disputed, but an insight into the ease of which they could be dealt with if it's true.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:04 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by Frankel

It is possible than syrian pilots have trained alongside russian ones? as for the "shooting down" incident i think isreal would be quite proud to announce its victory in the air against its arab foe

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:08 AM by Timely

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Timely

It is possible the Russians could supply more aircraft. anyway nobody knows how many they have to start with they are very secretive

As Russia is a part of NATO, that would truly escalate things.

However, it would seem that Russia would rather see an 'in house' resolution first, rather than being the "instigator" of WW3.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:22 AM by Frankel

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Frankel

It is possible than syrian pilots have trained alongside russian ones? as for the "shooting down" incident i think isreal would be quite proud to announce its victory in the air against its arab foe

Yeah it's possible but not enough hours to attually matter in a combat scenario IMO, your talking about being combat ready.

Not sure where the 'shooting down' incident reports came from, but yeah not sure why the Israelis would deny it if it happened.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:33 AM by GrandHeretic

reply to post by Frankel

MiG 29s were actually Russias answer to the F-15 strike eagle. Both are pretty equal in the right hands. Most modern day US aircraft would decimate though. Cannot say how the older model Euro planes would fair as they still use pretty much the same thing they had before.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:35 AM by GrandHeretic

reply to post by Timely

How is russia apart of NATO again? They were orginally a Warsaw pact country even just after the curtain fell. I wasnt aware they joined NATO.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:36 AM by Orwells Ghost

Originally posted by Timely

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Timely

It is possible the Russians could supply more aircraft. anyway nobody knows how many they have to start with they are very secretive

As Russia is a part of NATO, that would truly escalate things.

However, it would seem that Russia would rather see an 'in house' resolution first, rather than being the "instigator" of WW3.

When did Russia join NATO? Did I wake up in an alternate universe?
IMO I don't think it would matter if the Russians doubled Syria's supply of fighters, the infrastructure they use to support their military would be crushed in a matter of weeks. The real war would be on the ground.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:49 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by Orwells Ghost

That would depend on how good their ground to air defence systems are and nobody (apart from the russians) knows what capability they have . syria is no push over like libya

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 09:54 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by GrandHeretic

The eurofighter typhoon and saab js39 are pretty useful

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 10:44 AM by Mkoll

As long as they are having unidentified oxygen problems with the F-22 I wouldn't expect to see them flying into combat. As for NATO's other air assets, they probably outnumber the Syrians. As for quality I can't really know, as it has been pointed out that these 4g fighters require highly skilled pilots. I don't know anything about the quality of Syrian pilots. With a modern air defense system, though, I would expect a fair number of NATO losses. If I were a pilot on either side I would not want to ditch in the wrong part of the country. Depending on who you work for they could tear you apart.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 10:49 AM by pavil

Originally posted by dashdespatch
just wondered if the west went to war or on some "peacekeeping" mission in syria how well the wests aircraft would cope with the syrian airforce (and its surface to air system) in its own country especially its mig 29s?

Israel has pretty much dominated the Syrian Air Force when they have met. I think that should give you an indication of how it would play out. Also you have to consider some of the Air Force Brass defecting from Assad. I'd be more worried over the SAM's than the actual airplanes.

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 11:10 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by pavil

Yes but they havent met for 30 years and they have modernised greatly since with a lot of help from the russians

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 11:12 AM by dashdespatch

reply to post by Mkoll

ithink there could be severe losses by the west the americans lost a stealth fighter in the kossovo war by a force nowhere near the strength of syria

reply posted on 30-5-2012 @ 11:25 AM 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.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^