Can a Su-22 carry chemical weapons (such as Sarin gas)?

Short answer is yes.

Iraq used sarin against the Kurds and Iranians.

Syria used it in 2013 as proven by a UN investigation, although like today Russia insist it was someone else.

Stick Sarin in dumb bombs, in artilley shells or rockets. It's all the same death at the end.

a reply to: intrptr

Again you are missing the point and it is complicated. In Assad's eyes, those people are the opposition, they live in Syria, yes but they directly oppose his rule because he is an Alawite which oppose Sharia law and Burkas etc. As far as who performed the attack, I do not know however the Assad regime has resorted to the use of chemical weapons before and has admitted the use of chemical weapons.

The rebels and other fighters do not have a delivery system to use chemical weapons such as aircraft unlike the Syrians, other than using mortar shells etc. The Russians say the gas was released after a Syrian government shell hit a rebel building that was making chemical weapons which is certainly plausible. The Russians assured the world that all chemical weapons were removed from Syria's arsenal after the last confirmed use so it wouldn't surprise me if the rebels did it.

Assad is a minority in the country, has enjoyed the support of the West for a long time as he has always been considered to be the lessor of the evils available but he is a brutal dictator that would not hesitate to kill every member of the opposition if he could. Before the civil war it was not unusual to purge the population and kill or imprison many of "his" people.

I am skeptical that he would again resort to the use of chemical weapons as it puts the Russians in a very bad position, which bolsters your point that the rebels or even CIA would resort to something like this, a twofer so to speak, make the Russians look bad which seems to be all the rage, and start more conflict and possibly a regime change campaign. But make no mistake, Assad is certainly capable of killing Syrians.

originally posted by: intrptr
The Syrian army dismantled its chemical apparatus two years ago, the process was monitored and confirmed.

Since when has facts stopped our Western war loving overlords from launching attacks on sovereign states.

This whole Syria situation will turn into another Iraq, 13 years on and there's not been a single trace of any WMD's in Iraq, just watch for the modern day witch hunt to return again only this time it will be in search of chemical weapons instead of WMD's

a reply to: intrptr

Depends on what the weapon is. If its VX then it can be very effective in correct amounts and wind dispersion.

If it was a chemical attack then it cannot have been a su22.

Su22 cannot carry chemical bombs, anyone with any knowledge of Russian aircraft can tell you that.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Oh really, and why not? A chemical bomb is just an HE device that had the warhead replaced.

The Su-22 was designed to carry all the standard Russian weapons, which means it can carry chemical weapons.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

sigh.

Yes, they can. Chem weapons are just like conventional weapons.

Simply replace the explosive warhead with a container.

Nothing special about them except he warhead. They still fire the same way, are loaded the same way, carried the same way.

a reply to: Discotech

Unless you include mustard gas and other chemical weapons which Hussein used against the Kurdish people, at one point an entire village of over 10-thousand people to include woman and children.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If a weapon is capable of killing that many people at the one time, then I would say it is a WMD but that is just me. That was in 1988 when Mr. Hussein was our friend and buddy. And plenty of mustard gas was found in Iraq during the Gulf War, and it is believed to have been used against American troops but was never confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

sigh.

Yes, they can. Chem weapons are just like conventional weapons.

Simply replace the explosive warhead with a container.

It depends on a few factors. The weight may be different so the ballistics of a drop may be different as well. In the same way say a 500 pound bomb requires a different release point from a 200o pound one. That being said as mentioned previously it would be on problem to deploy these for Asssad.

a reply to: FredT

I've seen several sites in the last few days claiming the Su-22 couldn't, because they carry different weapons than other aircraft, and use weapons specific to them.

That makes no sense at all, and would be stupid, something the Russians aren't. You may have a few weapons that specific aircraft can carry, but not the entire range of weapons.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

I've seen several sites in the last few days claiming the Su-22 couldn't, because they carry different weapons than other aircraft, and use weapons specific to them.

That makes no sense at all, and would be stupid, something the Russians aren't. You may have a few weapons that specific aircraft can carry, but not the entire range of weapons.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it less true. At least now you are admitting you don't actually know.

A step in the right direction.

a reply to: paraphi

"Syria used it in 2013 as proven by a UN investigation, although like today Russia insist it was someone else."

Are you referring to this investigation?
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

if you are such an expert on the subject and think you know more about the SU-22 then explain why it cant carry a dispenser weapon?

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Then prove it. The Su-22 weapons list includes almost all the major Russian weapons. So prove that it can't, instead of just making snide comments.