It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


War with Syria and the Mig 29

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Shred
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).

Even if they launch aircraft, they won't have command and control directing them and they sure won't have runways to land back onto. They will be flying blind and deaf in a very hostile environment, I don't think they will be able to do anything, quite frankly. We CAN measure Syria's pilot's abilities by their track record. It just isn't very good.

Name one country that the Soviets/Russians have trained/equipped that have managed to do anything significant to Western Air Forces.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:38 PM

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.

This, the Syrian Airforce would never get off the ground and if it did it would be blind and deaf and a sitting duck. Taking on the US or NATO in the air is not something anybody wants to try and do.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:38 PM
world war 3 has begun.

like churchill said it is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

because of nuclear war, world war 3 is being fought as a cold war, for now. the united states cant send troops, but it can send military contractors as unnamed, unidentified mercenaries to fight as insurgents.

what is ze doing right now and why is it receiving billions from the pentagon every year.

they fought and overthrew libya, now they are fighting with and arming insurgents in syria.

syria is vitally strategic because it is irans only friendly land route to the middle east and american interests.

if assad falls, then iran has no way to strike israel and a military campaign against iran can proceed without having to worry about thousands of iranian troops pouring into israel thru syria and lebanon.

the war against iran has already started. the military and whitehouse control the america media outlets. it would never jeopardize the safety of america because its citizens can't or won't understand whats going on in the world.

so you'll never hear this. and how many syrian insurgents or ze contractors with boots on the ground do you know to confirm what is happening.

the answer to that zero. that information is on an need to know basis.

edit on 30-5-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by dashdespatch

Sorry Gulf War 1 An Iraqi Pilot augered in a Mirage aircraft before it could be dropped by an F18.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted 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.

My bad, I should have said Nato Russia Council.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by dashdespatch
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


Even if Russia jumped in it would get an almighty arse kicking from NATO, it would just be a long old fight... but they would get kicked all the way back to Moscow without a shadow of a doubt, I'm not entirely sure why some many people think its anything to worry about,

Syrian Migs Vs US/NATO Aircraft? why are we even talking about this?, if the US/NATO went into Syria it would be over before its began, Ground troops would be tied up fighting a pointless war, its up to Syria to sort its self out, unfortunately a number of powers are all involved in Syria, Assad should have stepped down and Iran & Russia should have spent money on getting another anti west leader in office instead of sell them weapons to kill Syria people

Let Russian or Iranian troops go in and sort it out this time, and instead we can just sit there and fund the rebels, supply them with arms & training to blow up there troops with IED's Karma

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM
Removing two opposing combat systems from the whole battle environment to examine their effectiveness will not work accurately. When the modern anti-tank missile came of age it was claimed that its' 95% hit rate spelled the end for the tank. That hit rate was determined in test conditions. In the real world there is so much artillery, mortar and machine gun fire ahead of an advancing tank unit that exposed missile infantry has a hard time doing anything besides stinging the advancing armor before being forced to retreat (I'm talking large units of armor).

The Mig 29 will not meet F15s, Euro fighters, or F22s on a featureless battlefield. There will be softening up attacks to disrupt the effectiveness of Syrias control abilities. A thousand little problems will materialize in minutes from long range missiles and stealth attacks. Communications will get a little more difficult, radars will be reduced, runways will have holes in them, electronic warfare will mislead and confuse. Syria will not be able to do the same to the attackers, not in any meaningful, outcome altering way.

The total quality of U.S. forces and combat experience/strategy/tactics far outstrips the impact of whether or not the Mig 29 is the equal of what the West has. I would expect allied losses to be held to less than a half dozen aircraft. Why should they be higher? The aggressor is free to choose how he prosecutes the attack on an enemy unable to respond in kind. There will be no Syrian attacks on the core of allied strength. The aggressor holds all the good cards.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:55 PM
F-15C/E with AWACS is more than a match for anything Syria can put up. Even if a few can mange to get past the BVR capabilites then they get to deal with the AIM-9X. SAMs and radar controlled AAA might be a problem at lower levels but generally you wont find Eagles down in the weeds much. Anykind of SAM for higher levels are usually radar guided and can be jammed or evaded. F-16Es and the F/A-18Es would stack up pretty good against a Mig-29 or Su-27 as well.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:33 PM
You take out the Migs by taking out the airfield.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by StratosFear

Ah yes, the F-15E is a bad a** bird no doubt.

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:00 PM
Nato pilots are much better trained, and hardware isnt everything. sure you can put a caveman in an abrams, but can he use it? if anything happens, the air defense network of syria would be bombed into oblivion before syria knew it was coming

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by GrandHeretic

The MiG-29 was the counterpart to the F-15A/B/C/D, not the E. The E has limited dog fighting ability, but is primarily a down in the weeds aircraft. I believe there are only a couple that have ever scored an air to air kill, and one of those dropped a bomb on a helicopter.

As for the original question, my money is on NATO not having much of a problem. One of the reason that the US trains the hell out of their pilots is so that when they go into combat, they are using systems without thinking about it. One US military pilot occasionally gets more training time per year, than some air forces get combined. NATO air forces don't get as much time as US pilots do, but they still get more training than a lot of countries get. Syrian MiG-29s would cause problems, but in the long run, I don't think that they would cause enough of a problem for NATO to stop any military intervention they had going on.

The MiG-29 is a good airplane, and I'm impressed by it. But training time plays a big role when it comes to combat. If you can reach down and throw switches and activate systems without looking, that means that your eyes are always scanning, looking for bad guys. The bad guy that has to look down to find a system is in trouble.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in