was she fake? you realise a girl actually died regardless of wether ir really was his adopted daughter or not
NATO air strike possibly kills Gaddafi's son
- Thread starter raikesi
- Start date
was she fake? you realise a girl actually died regardless of wether ir really was his adopted daughter or not
TBH that would be a far more pertinent an argument if it hadn't been the fact that the UK and France were the two nations pushing for the invasion of Libya in the first place... It was only after the bombing began that NATO got involved and after a couple of weeks of diplomacy before the US (reluctantly) got involved...
Syria is America's ally and thus untouchable. They are free to kill their own people the UN won't do a thing about it. Don't you and nutella who are so proud of saving lives should find this at least a bit two-faced and revolting?
What makes you think that? It would be a lot closer match than Libya or Iraq but we have more modern fighters than them and more advanced missiles.
(Or is this another "typhoon is rubbish" argument that always gets banded around by people that actually have no knowledge on teh subject..?)
We have ~135 GR4 Tornado's and ~70 Typhoons, as its unlikely that even our government would be foolish enough to commit the entire RAF to one battle lets say they send half of them (68 GR4's and 35 Typhoons) they would be up against (not including surface to air):
~60-100 MiG-29 Fulcrum (total number not disclosed by Syria or Russia)
~35-40 MiG-25 Foxbat
~106-146 MiG-23 Flogger
~20 Su-24 Fencer
~X Su-27 Flanker (numbers not disclosed by Syria or Russia)
As im not one of those "typhoon is rubbish types" I haven't included the nearly 300 combined MiG-21's and Su-22/20's for arguments sake. Unlike the antiquated soviet era jets of Libya most of which are probably rusting in hangers under dust sheets never to fly again, the numbers shown here are of fully maintained and operational combat ready aircraft some of which were supplied in recent times.
The Tornado GR4 is a good plane but its difficult to say it has a significant advantage over the SU-27, MiG-29 and the MLD variant of the MiG-23, also some of the MiG-29's possessed by Syria are the modernized M2/SMT variants that outclass the GR4. As far as our more advanced missiles go the Storm shadow and Brimstone are air to surface leaving the GR4 just Sidewinders and ASRAAM's (both short range heat seekers).
In short the GR4's would be totally outnumbered by outdated planes, equivalent planes and superior planes, The Typhoon would have the advantage over any plane thrown at it but the numbers game would play its part im sure.
So I stick by my position backing the statement that the RAF alone would get its behind kicked by the Syrian air force. But I will add that its all irrelevant as our government wouldn't be stupid enough to try it
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
I don't really want to be an armchair general type, but I wouldn't put much faith in the airworthiness of their aircraft or the training of their pilots, the Typhoons would probably only be limited by the number of missiles they could carry, and we do have air defense destroyers as well (I don't know if the T-45s are in service yet though). Our forces actually have combat experience as well.
Granted, it would be a much tougher fight than Libya, but to say they would 'kick our asses' is just silly, and don't forget we are operating as a coalition now, so 'our' has to mean France, the US etc as well.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I'll admit... I didn't actually see the SU-27s listed when I went looking for data (but that was me being blind...
).
However given close airfields (eg flown from Iraq and Jordan) I'd still suggest the RAf would make a very good showing, I'd hope that if the push came to shove the F3s would be recomissioned in short order and be usable in backup too. Numbers are important but there aren't that many more aircraft (I'd hope that a Typhoon would be able to do a 3:1 battle quite easily against the majority of the syrian airforce due to it's ability to project far beyond visible range). I'd also add in the ability of the pilots (we have some of the best trained pilots in the world, with some of the highest training hours in the world) how do Syrias compare?
There's also the small matter of standoff weapons, like cruise missiles, that could destroy aircraft on the ground and the runways/weapons/supplies they need. How do Syria stack up? Same with AWAC and electronic warfare/reconnaissance?
I'm not suggesting the RAF would win easily but I definately wouldn't suggest we would get out behinds kicked in.
But yeah I agree, it would be a mess!
).However given close airfields (eg flown from Iraq and Jordan) I'd still suggest the RAf would make a very good showing, I'd hope that if the push came to shove the F3s would be recomissioned in short order and be usable in backup too. Numbers are important but there aren't that many more aircraft (I'd hope that a Typhoon would be able to do a 3:1 battle quite easily against the majority of the syrian airforce due to it's ability to project far beyond visible range). I'd also add in the ability of the pilots (we have some of the best trained pilots in the world, with some of the highest training hours in the world) how do Syrias compare?
There's also the small matter of standoff weapons, like cruise missiles, that could destroy aircraft on the ground and the runways/weapons/supplies they need. How do Syria stack up? Same with AWAC and electronic warfare/reconnaissance?
I'm not suggesting the RAF would win easily but I definately wouldn't suggest we would get out behinds kicked in.
But yeah I agree, it would be a mess!
So I stick by my position backing the statement that the RAF alone would get its behind kicked by the Syrian air force. But I will add that its all irrelevant as our government wouldn't be stupid enough to try it
im waiting for the
"we would just nuke them" brigade
And Israel showed they're capable of taking out Syria's most secure facilities without casualties, they are scary.
Really? Forget the 6 day war?
Indeed...
So you're saying that if we're not capable of, or prepared to, intervene everywhere we should intervene no where? I find that idea "bit two-faced and revolting" frankly. It's not a perfect world and something is better than nothing, feel free to take a lead on international politics or pick up a rifle and go help. No? Rather stay at home criticising those that do at least help some? Thought so...
International politics has been the same for thousands of years, with alliances, invasions, helping some, not helping others. It's not a perfect world and until the day we recognise we're a single human race with a unified world government of some sort it'll stay that way.
I find it interesting to read posts from people saying it's "revolting" we don't intervene to help everywhere, when they are not prepared to intervene themselves. So, you want to go to war with Syria to support the protests - fair enough, where will you be when the bullets start flying? If it's in the front line, and you have that courage of your convictions then you have my respect. If not it just smacks of another arm chair politician happy to send other peoples sons and daughters off to die to satisfy your sense of "fairness".
It's not a perfect system and it leaves a lot to be desired but it's what we have at the moment. Idealism is great for debates but rarely seems to translate to the real world unfortunately.
Last edited:
.