Syrian Air support?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Flanker15:

Did some further reading and found they have a complement of 50 Mig-29s so they're a match for any NATO fighters.

Are Mig-29s really a match for F-22s? or F-35s? </font>

[Peter Cairns]

Didn't a pair of US F-16's shoot down some Serbian Trainer/Light Attack aircraft over Bosnia.

They didn't actually atttack US ground forces but they could have as i think the US had people on the ground.

Peter.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

If you want to talk about planes actualy flying, MIG-29s of the Luftwaffe routinly fly circles around USAF aircraft in training excercices.

Riiiiight.

[Sergei]

Re: friendly fire, I bet there are FAR less friendly air-to-ground fire incidents than there would have been in earlier decades, but they end up being WAYS deadlier than before. This is because the weapon load of a modern ground attack aircraft is so much more accurate and deadlier than those of WW2, and because it always becomes unexpected. A P-47 Thunderbolt could carry 2000 lb of unguided bombs whereas an A-10 Thunderbolt II can deliver 16000 lb of guided weapons!

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

If you want to talk about planes actualy flying, MIG-29s of the Luftwaffe routinly fly circles around USAF aircraft in training excercices.

Riiiiight. </font>

[tiny_tanker]

Actually the Luftwaffe Mig-29 pilots are very good, but the Mig-29 isn't in the same class as the F-15 even, let alone next generation systems like the F-22 or F-35. There is a video out there of a training exercise between the Luftwaffe Mig-29 and a Navy F/A-18D squadron on the Germans home turf. It was a good match if i remember correctly the Migs won maybe two more engagements than the Hornets did. This is quite interesting since a two seat fighter is generally quite inferior to their single seat counterpart.

The Syrians would fair much worse, using older versions of the Mig-29 with far inferior pilots. There would be a 100% casualty rate for any fighters that took to the air simple as that.

[tankibanki]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

Actually the Luftwaffe Mig-29 pilots are very good, but the Mig-29 isn't in the same class as the F-15 even, let alone next generation systems like the F-22 or F-35. There is a video out there of a training exercise between the Luftwaffe Mig-29 and a Navy F/A-18D squadron on the Germans home turf. It was a good match if i remember correctly the Migs won maybe two more engagements than the Hornets did. This is quite interesting since a two seat fighter is generally quite inferior to their single seat counterpart.

The Syrians would fair much worse, using older versions of the Mig-29 with far inferior pilots. There would be a 100% casualty rate for any fighters that took to the air simple as that.

Outcomes depended on the circumstances: in BVR combat the MiGs didn't stand a chance against the Hornets, in short range engagements the MiGs were superior. BTW, Germany doesnt have MiGs anymore.

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

*insert your preferred joke about ground forces not needing enemy air force when there's friendly fire*

+1

"points of pride" are easily supplanted by other factors; USAF may be proud that it has prevented enemy aircraft from attacking US ground forces; the number of attacks they personally prosecuted on US and allied forces kind of mitigates a bit of that. Not to lay blame or imply it isn't inevitable, just saying, is all. A 20 year old mother's son is just as dead regardless of whether a Hind or an A-10 killed him. </font>

[Homo ferricus]

Just because the US has the biggest military (and military budget) in the world doesn't mean that its perfect. In training exercises, as said before, Indian, German, Russian, Israeli and other nation's pilots easily outmaneuver American pilots in close range combat, where the US finds it's advantage is being able to detect tangos from extreme distances and then being able to lob super-missiles from miles away and hit their target with accuracy and lethality. So technically, they "shouldn't" find themselves in a close range situation. Although perhaps the F-22 might change this.

[tiny_tanker]

The F-22 brings a completely different dynamic to dog fighting. It can preform manuvers never before seen anywhere, unless you count purpose designed stunt planes. I watched a pilot at the Langley air show last year just playing around in one for about 20 min. He was pulling moves that made the bi-plane doing his act over the runway look like it was the most awkward thing in the world.

On the note of whose the best, all depends on your tactics. The US is best at BVR, and the Israelis are probably kings of the dog fight because thats all they do. Thats not to say that US pilots are not extremely capable in that arena , the real question is why let the enemy get that close if you don't have to.

Just my thoughts on the subject anyway.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Following Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force was estimated to include:

* 15 MiG-29 ground-attack aircraft

* 30 Mirage F1 ground-attack aircraft

* 50 MiG-23 multi-role fighters

* 20 Su-25 ground-attack aircraft

* 30 Su-20/-22 ground-attack aircraft

* 7 Tu-16 and B-6D bombers

* 10 Tu-22 supersonic bombers

Interesting. I am willing to bet that their operational strength was much less than that list implies. As most on this board probably know, military power goes beyond the amount of equipment in the shed. You need trained personnel to fly and support all that stuff, staff to manage the fight, and facilities to support it. 12 years of neglect post-GWI probably eroded much of that.

[Dirtweasle]

Yep, it was just a quick search I did and you'd have to do quite a bit more work to understand really what was operational and / or combat capable. Maybe that data is out there somplace.

[flamingknives]

tinytanker

1) The MiG 29 isn't supposed to be in the same class as an F15. It's a F18/F16 analogue.

2) the MiG 29 is a single seat fighter.

3) The F22 is very impressive when it comes to manoeuvers, but I've seen a MiG 29 with modern thrust vectoring.

4) the F22 will beat the MiG down in almost any situation where the pilots are equal. Unless the US spots the Syrians a couple of hundred pilots, it's not going to be a remotely even contest.

[MikeyD]

"the F22 will beat the MiG down in almost any situation where the pilots are equal"

Lets not forget F22's designed to be stealthy. He can shoot from long range and they can't. With a MiG29's radar useless a missile-armed Cessna would be Lord of the Skies!

...but if they do shoot down a single F22 that's something over $100 million+ taxpayer dollars immediately up in smoke. isn't it? That was a dread of mine with Bush's recent saber-rattling against Iran. Any short-term benefit that came from a bombing campaign would be for naught if wreckage of a single B2 was spashed up on TV news reports worldwide.

[Homo ferricus]

actually i think its closer to $60 million, whereas a JSF cost about $20 million. If i remember correctly.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

... Any short-term benefit that came from a bombing campaign would be for naught if wreckage of a single B2 was spashed up on TV news reports worldwide.

Depends if in the future those Iranian nukes they went to bomb would be or were already used on a large city.

[flamingknives]

It depends how you cost it, but these days F22 is well over $100m and the JSF is edging over $50m each.

[MikeyD]

"Depends if in the future those Iranian nukes they went to bomb would be or were already used on a large city."

Never gonna happen. Iran's Shia.

Pakistani nukes, on the other hand, I'm scares sh*tless over. We're one coup away from those thing being in the hands of the people who backed the Sunni Taliban over world opposition.

[tiny_tanker]

flamingknives

1. Your right, but what do you think we will clear the majority of the skies with? Maybe our "air superiority fighters"??

2. Also correct, except for a few to seat training models I think Syria poses. But when I compared its performance to the two seat F/A-18D earlier no one cared that the Mig had a slight advantage in close in dog fighting so why make an issue of it now? The new F/A-18E would slaughter the Mig with no problems just like the F-15, 22, 35.

3. Your thinking of the SU-37 Super Flanker, I have seen no Mig 29's with thrust vectoring, and I've seen a lot of both.

4. Agreed, its hard to compare an air force with pilots who get over 20 flying hours a month with one that get around 15 hours a year.

[RMC]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

When is the last time US troops have been attacked by an enemy air force? Korea?

Saw an article being emailed around the office earlier this week written by the Air Force Chief of Staff. He says 1953.

[PLM2]

Even if their airforce did make it through, i can testify that there still are air defenders with manportable stingers and avengers able to ID aircraft of many types. I wouldnt wanna have to deal with stingers. No radar jamming is gonna save the airforce from direct ground fire

[Dr. Zoidberg]

EDIT: Do not write replies late at night.

[PLM2]

Or when drinking, i seem to do that a lot here. But i usually make sure to edit it 2 or 3 times.

Back on topic, it would be nice to see Syrian aircraft in the future. I understand you guys are aiming for the basics at the moment, but things like no water and no red on red is kind of a bummer. As long as it comes along eventually, Id really appreciate it

[Sergei]

Huh? Where did you get the 'no red on red'? I thought Steve has been saying the opposite thing.

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Huh? Where did you get the 'no red on red'? I thought Steve has been saying the opposite thing.

IIRC he said it would be in as an option, but they aren't going to to any extra work on features for it, such as (specifically) Syrian aircraft. Since they're not in the main game for the operational reasons in this thread, they're not going to do the extra work to put them in purely for red on red battles where they would be a factor.