Syrian Air support?

[FAI]

So, a Syrian player will not have to worry about friendly fire from the sky. That should be an advantage...

[flamingknives]

Tinytanker:

I've seen MiG 29s fitted with thrust vectoring.

As demonstrated here.

[tiny_tanker]

I guess I should have said "I've never seen a Mig 29 with thrust vectoring being used as a combat aircraft". That is a good find though, thank you for sharing it. Looks like it brings its general mobility up to par with the SU-27, and then gives it that extra little something.

[Flanker15]

To bring it back OT, will the Syrian army have short range AA available to counter the air support? Like shoulder launched SAMs, AAA and Shilkas?

[Lee]

Click on the combat briefing #1 on the left side of the page to see the coolest 3D Shilka ever!

http://www.sierra.com/publish/sierra/en/home/games/game_info.tab-downloadtab.prod-L2NvbnRlbnQvc2llcnJhL2VuL3Byb2R1Y3RzL3dvcmxkX2luX2NvbmZsaWN0.platform-global.html

[MikeyD]

One SUPPOSES Syrian air could get into the game if the backstory had Syria striking first, 6-Day-War style. Taking out regional military runways before anyone realised we were even at war. That might include Scud nerve gas strikes on airports, special forces attacks on air traffic control and communication, even infiltrating shoulder fired missiles around the ends of airstrips that AWACs take off from - really major stuff! But that would only postpone the inevitable and U.S. 'retribution' would dwarf anything we've seen in Iraq. So not particularly likely, and not particularly likely to succeed.

[YankeeDog]

Any pre-emptive Syrian strike on US air assets would be so highly unlikely to succeed as to be insiginificant, I would say.

Most USAF fixed-wing assets, and especially stuff like the AWACs, are operating from more secure strips, well established bases very well protected with the latest generation Patriot air defense systems, not to mention generous defensive perimeters and substantial ground defenses. Getting close enough to those runways to take out something with a MANPAD would be a challenge indeed. And olders, unguided, medium-range Ballistic missiles like SCUDs don't stand a chance against the newer Patriot systems.

Also, a significant amount of US firepower is from the carrier air groups, including carrier-launched AWACs. In the extremely unlikely event some very brave and lucky Syrian commando team manages to take out one or two of the USAF AWACs, the Navy's can fill in in a pinch.

There's a lot of theory out there that a well-skippered diesel sub might be able to put a hole in a CN, and a few years back the Argentine Navy proved this is a legitimate threat in an exercise off Hawaii. But, AFAIK, the Syrian Navy posesses no such capability. And sneaking up on one with a motorboat full of explosives is unlikely to work a second time. . .

A surprise massive strike of the most advanced systems China or Russia is currently manufacturing could probably penetrate a US Airbase/CAG defensive perimeter and cause some damage, but the older technology that the Syrians are sporting doesn't stand a chance in hell.

From everything I've read Syrian Commando units are brave, and effective. But they're not supermen. Maybe some kind of clandestine Spec Ops attack on an airfield gets one or two planes, and/or shuts down one airfield for a couple of hours. That's about the worst I can see happening. A propaganda victory, maybe, but no real effect on any air campaign.

Cheers,

YD

[MikeyD]

The flaw I can see in my little 'Pearl Harbor redux' scenario is that if the U.S. has been caught so flat-footed that they hadn't bothered to deploy their Patriot batteries, they also probably wouldn't have forward-deployed their air assets in anticipation of trouble either. So these imagined massive strikes would've taken place on mostly empty hangars.

But even under the best of circumstances (for them) I still imagine the Syrian air force lasting eight days max instead of the more probable eight hours.

[YankeeDog]

Sure, if by "lasting eight days" you mean a week of hiding out in concrete bunkers and other carefully camoflaged places, interspersed with maybe a few desperate, low-level flights from location to location, in a vain attempt to keep the US guessing as to where all the planes are. . . It might be possible for it to be a week or so before the US manages to locate and get all the planes.

But in terms of actual offensive sorties, I think the Syrians maybe get a few hours on Day 1, if they catch the US *really* flat footed, before AWACs and constant CAP keeps their planes grounded, or at best running for cover.

[MikeyD]

Syria, say hello to my little friend the intercontinental stealth B2 droping JDAMs!

[bartleby]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We're not putting in any air for the Syrians. Red on Red is a "freebie" and we're not interested in putting in extra effort for them.

This is dissapointing as for me personally Red on Red is the biggest drawcard for this title.

As air is already implemented for Blue how difficult would it be to add it to Red at a later date, or alternatively is it possible to use Blue aircaft as support to a Red ground force in the editor?