Chicoms are hoping to get Raptor for their R&D (reverse and duplicate) from Syria.
Posted on 08/28/2013 12:21:13 PM PDT by Nachum
(CNSNews.com) - Ryan Crocker, who was a career diplomat with long experience in the Middle East, and who served as the U.S. ambassador to Syria from 1998 to 2001, says “there’s every chance we’ll lose aircraft” if U.S. planes enter Syrian airspace.
During an August 23 National Public Radio (NPR) interview Crocker was asked about possible U.S. military action against Syria.
“I was in Lebanon when the Israelis invaded in June of 1982, and the entire Syrian air force was basically just destroyed in a matter of hours because of inadequate air defenses,” said Crocker.
“The Syrians learned from that and have spent decades with their Russian allies developing a highly advanced, well-integrated air defense system,” Crocker continued. “That's what makes a no-fly zone so much more dangerous in Syria than in, say, Iraq or Libya. There's every chance we would lose aircraft.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Well, basically all we are waiting for is the 2013 version of the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964.” B-P
Absolutely! How many MANPADs did the muzzie bastards get out of Bengazi? 24,000?
We don’t really have to bomb anything to make a decisive difference. Nor do we need to expose aircraft to the worst of their air defenses.
The Syrian government is staying afloat because of an Iranian/Russian airlift and sealift.
All the US needs to do is interdict that. Blocking their Med ports is simple and can be done from a distance. A few AWACs and some distant F-22 patrols, in Turkish and Iraqi airspace perhaps, would make flying any large aircraft into Syrian airspace very dangerous.
Its not that we can’t do it, its whether we want to.
Thanks.
So, let’s say that the Syrian Government did use gas - using a missile to hit a carrier or Israel would not be out of the question.
This is a huge can of worms, plus who knows how many we will kill initially in return for the use of gas - seems like a more than passingly strange way to go.
Chicoms are hoping to get Raptor for their R&D (reverse and duplicate) from Syria.
Here is what they have per a few sources; my guess is if we use aircraft i hope its B-1 bombers from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and B-2.
Syria’s Air Defense Command consists of the 24th and 26th anti-aircraft divisions, which comprise thousands of anti-aircraft guns and more than 130 surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries.
The bulk of Syria’s SAM weaponry is composed of the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6 and SA-8 SAM systems, which were also operated by Gadhafi’s forces. However, the Syrians operate these systems in far greater numbers, have devoted significant resources to maintaining and upgrading these missile batteries and have also successfully deployed their SAM systems in a dense and overlapping layout that would complicate operations to suppress enemy air defenses. Though also a Russian ally, Gadhafi did not have the more advanced Russian air defense systems that the al Assad regime possesses. For example, Iran reportedly financed Syria’s acquisition of 50 SA-22 systems first delivered in 2007 — 10 of which allegedly ended up in Iranian hands. The Syrians are also thought to operate several SA-11 systems, which the Libyans did not have. Syria’s defenses against an air campaign are not restricted to the ground. Its air force can contribute dozens of fighter aircraft and interceptors, which any intervention force would also have to contend with
Blood thirsty democrats cite Kosovo as precedent.
At that time, Serbia was two bit army with no Russian/Chicom/Iranian support.
Yet managed to shoot down a Nighthawk and undisclosed number of other aircraft.
Without integrated air defense, using thermal and tv guidance instead of suppressed radars.
Over Serbia's skies, 4 U.S. jets were not able to shoot down in dogfight one Serbian Mig flying without operational on-board RADAR.
Even more interesting is what USAF and allies accomplished in 78 days of turkey shooting: destroyed 14 (fourteen) tanks and murdered thousands of civilians, causing $70B of damage to civilian infrastructure.
Inflatable decoys, particleboard "aircraft", "tanks" made of scrap, microwave ovens, "roads" made of black garbage bags were the targets.
All of these and more will be in Syria. Plus, S300 and other toys.
No wonder Brits chickened out.
IIRC, I think continuous wave radar (CW) can defeat stealth to the point where you could light them up like it was day. I remember reading about that in the 1990’s. Come to think of it, CW radar was used as far back as the 1930’s and 1940’s, most notably in the British “Chain Home” system. Attacking Syria is a lose/lose proposition, I would hate to be the chump(s) who would have to fly an F-15 or worse, a B-52 over Damascus, it would make flying over Hanoi look like a picnic. I have an old (1981) “Elementary Electronics” magazine article somewhere about how the F-15’s avionics measure up on the battlefield and it had a writeup on how tough the Syrian defenses were in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The SA-6 and especially the SA-8’s were very deadly. I’m sure they are still there today along with newer stuff of course. If the Syrians did anything to us, I’d say, “yeah, sure, let’s go get them,” but they haven’t done a thing to us and in a way with Assad, he’s one of the few keeping a lid, or trying to, the radical Islamists. I think this is a way to distract from Bengazi, the economy, Obummercare, etc.
Stealth technology has always been detectable by low band search RADAR. The British publicly announced after Desert Storm that they were able to track F-117s operating out of Saudi Arabia using low band search RADARs aboard ships sailing in the Persian Gulf. Stealth reduces detection range it does not make you invisible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.