• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Russia Really Shoot Down an F-22, F-35 or B-2 Stealth Bomber in Syria?

Jredbaron96 said:
I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

Well .. as another poster pointed out, the Serbs were able to take out an F117 using modified 1970's Russian missile technology. They managed to see the F117 and take it out. They actually hit two of them but the other survived and made it home safe (but never flew again).

That was in the late 1990's ... the last time we had a chance to see how well stealth worked but, it was not really a good test. It is not like the Serbs are some Military superpower ... or even close.

Russia's anti aircraft technology is ranked as the best in the world. We just don't know how well these bombers would hold up.

We know the F16's would drop like flies. Modern missile technology has advanced (and continues to advance) much quicker than planes and you can make 100 missiles for 1 plane.

F-22 are cool but we do not have many and they lose stealth when the skin gets wet ... no operations in the rain.

The F35 has been plagued with problems and can not seem to get off the ground. This leaves us with F-15/16 as our main fighter.
 
thinkagain said:
Well .. as another poster pointed out, the Serbs were able to take out an F117 using modified 1970's Russian missile technology. They managed to see the F117 and take it out. They actually hit two of them but the other survived and made it home safe (but never flew again).

That was in the late 1990's ... the last time we had a chance to see how well stealth worked but, it was not really a good test. It is not like the Serbs are some Military superpower ... or even close.
Click to expand...

Well, the Serbian air defense network was later acknowledged by NATO as a brilliant use of limited resources against a more powerful conventional force. The difference between China's 'quantum radar' is that is claims to be able to do something that has never been established. The Serbian air defense forces were a well trained and led force that actually demonstrated their capabilities to minimize their deficiencies.

Russia's anti aircraft technology is ranked as the best in the world. We just don't know how well these bombers would hold up.
Click to expand...

You're right, we don't know. We also don't know how well Russian air defense forces will work. That's the major downside of comparing conventional capabilities of modern forces; we have little evidence to work with and a lot of moderns aren't good indicators of capaibilities. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't a good indicator of how well the US fights, and neither Georgia nor Ukraine are good indicators of how good the Russians are.

We know the F16's would drop like flies. Modern missile technology has advanced (and continues to advance) much quicker than planes and you can make 100 missiles for 1 plane.
Click to expand...

As modern missiles advance so do countermeasures, both electronic and tactical. There are numerous engagements when modern aircraft engaged each other, firing numerous missiles, and neither side scored a kill.
 
11Bravo said:
We need to leave Russia alone. If you haven't been to the middle east recently, then you have no idea what's actually going on.

We're just digging this hole deeper and deeper. I was stationed in Jordan a while back and it's difficult, but it's also not OUR PROBLEM. We need to pull out of Syria. It's a vacuum for terror and we're only ruining any hopes of a professional friendship with Russia. We won't be needing to worry about being shot down IF WE AREN'T THERE.
Click to expand...

AGREED. Not because Russia is a 'victim' (its not), but because it would be the intelligent thing to do. Monroe and Eisenhower are rolling in their graves at the stupidity of the West of Today.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You're right, we don't know. We also don't know how well Russian air defense forces will work. That's the major downside of comparing conventional capabilities of modern forces; we have little evidence to work with and a lot of moderns aren't good indicators of capaibilities. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't a good indicator of how well the US fights, and neither Georgia nor Ukraine are good indicators of how good the Russians are..
Click to expand...

Yeah ... I think this is the biggest thing. When we have had almost no engagement between the two technologies in over 3 decades .. there is not much we can say.

As modern missiles advance so do countermeasures, both electronic and tactical. There are numerous engagements when modern aircraft engaged each other, firing numerous missiles, and neither side scored a kill
Click to expand...

Last one I recall was Turkey downing the Russian aircraft (mind you it was not a fighter Jet if I recall). I do not know of any instances when US or Russia aircraft engaged each other and none I can readily think where either were engaged by a their technical equivalent.

Iraq sure did not have anything modern. Libya did not have much either.
 
thinkagain said:
Last one I recall was Turkey downing the Russian aircraft (mind you it was not a fighter Jet if I recall). I do not know of any instances when US or Russia aircraft engaged each other and none I can readily think where either were engaged by a their technical equivalent.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Turks downed an Su-24M, a tactical bomber, using an F-16. This was actually a realistic comparison because the Turks actually have a fairly capable armed force compared to most other nations in the middle east.

Iraq sure did not have anything modern. Libya did not have much either.
Click to expand...

In general, the issue with Iraq wasn't poor equipment, it was the completely terrible training and quality of the average Iraqi solder and military personnel.
 
Simpleχity;1066405726 said:
Could Russia Really Shoot Down an F-22, F-35 or B-2 Stealth Bomber in Syria?


As tensions between Washington and Moscow flare, the Russian military is warning the United States that it has the ability to target stealth aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit that might be operating over Syria with the Almaz-Antey S-400 (NATO: SA-21 Growler) and the recently arrived S-300V4 (NATO: SA-23 Gladiator) air and missile defense systems....


565574acc461881c648b4625.jpg

Russia's S-400 Triumf (Triumph) Missile System. Now operational in Syria.
Click to expand...
Any plane can be shot down, if you are willing to pay the price.
 
Thoreau72 said:
By that do you mean that you will believe it when the Pentagon acknowledges its existence? ;)
Click to expand...

No, when I see it deployed and actually used as described.
 
Under Obama we don't shoot anything Russian.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, the Turks downed an Su-24M, a tactical bomber, using an F-16. This was actually a realistic comparison because the Turks actually have a fairly capable armed force compared to most other nations in the middle east.



In general, the issue with Iraq wasn't poor equipment, it was the completely terrible training and quality of the average Iraqi solder and military personnel.
Click to expand...

Iraq had an arms embargo since the first war in the early 90's - when most of their stuff was destroyed.


As per the F-16 and the Russian SU-24M bomber. This was the first time a Russian plane has been shot down since the Korean war but, as expected the missile won.
 
thinkagain said:
Iraq had an arms embargo since the first war in the early 90's - when most of their stuff was destroyed.


As per the F-16 and the Russian SU-24M bomber. This was the first time a Russian plane has been shot down since the Korean war but, as expected the missile won.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's true that the Iraqi technological level was declining. But that doesn't really tell whole story.

Training and troop quality matter far more than technology. Well trained troops can learn how to make up for technological deficiencies with their own equipment.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes, it's true that the Iraqi technological level was declining. But that doesn't really tell whole story.

Training and troop quality matter far more than technology. Well trained troops can learn how to make up for technological deficiencies with their own equipment.
Click to expand...

Training can only get you so far but, we are getting off the point. We really have not seen US technology tested. It has not been tested against semi modern technology never mind modern technology.

The Serb's not only hit two "stealth" F117's with 1970's missile technology, they also downed an F-16. That was in 1999 (which is not exactly that long ago)

Hopefully electronic counter measures have improved to the point where our planes can defeat 1970's technology but this has not been tested under battle conditions.

That such electronic counter measures would work against modern missile technology (designed to counter such counter measures) is yet another question, especially given that the Russians are more advanced in this arena.
 
thinkagain said:
We really have not seen US technology tested.
Click to expand...

Very little modern technology has been battlefield tested, and often the "experience" is misleading.

The A-10 is an old aircraft that modern SPAAGs and SHORAD would tear apart, but because insurgents with virtually no anti-air capability can't shoot them down no one wants to get rid of them.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Very little modern technology has been battlefield tested, and often the "experience" is misleading.

The A-10 is an old aircraft that modern SPAAGs and SHORAD would tear apart, but because insurgents with virtually no anti-air capability can't shoot them down no one wants to get rid of them.
Click to expand...


Any close air support aircraft is highly dependent on the environment which it operates as well as what tactics it uses to maximize its strengths and minimize its weakness.. The A-10 by the way was designed to operate in high threat environments at very low altitude levels. It was supposed to go up against ZSU-23's and the like and perform frontline, close air support, wild weasel and interdiction missions. That's why it is built so tough. Its not built like your F-16 or F-15 or F-22 or F-35. It is designed to be shot up and keep flying. It has been proven to be able to go into high threat environments back in the first Gulf war. Modern missiles have generally the same warheads they have had since the 80's the improvements have been mainly maneuverability, range and electronic in nature, with the main improvements in electronics. If I was going to design a modern close air support airframe it would use a lot of the design of the A-10 but go pilotless and try to add some more electronic countermeasures and more expendable countermeasures a bit more stealth and either thrust vectoring and or VTOL-STOL capability. I would go to a 57mm Bofors gun with programmable ammunition.
 
thinkagain said:
Training can only get you so far but, we are getting off the point. We really have not seen US technology tested. It has not been tested against semi modern technology never mind modern technology.

The Serb's not only hit two "stealth" F117's with 1970's missile technology, they also downed an F-16. That was in 1999 (which is not exactly that long ago)

Hopefully electronic counter measures have improved to the point where our planes can defeat 1970's technology but this has not been tested under battle conditions.

That such electronic counter measures would work against modern missile technology (designed to counter such counter measures) is yet another question, especially given that the Russians are more advanced in this arena.
Click to expand...

Well the F117s were late 70s early 80s tech so it's not like there is a huge time line difference between the two. Also stealth does not make planes invisible to everything. The real question is how many more nonstealth planes would have been shot down.
 
braindrain said:
Well the F117s were late 70s early 80s tech so it's not like there is a huge time line difference between the two. Also stealth does not make planes invisible to everything. The real question is how many more nonstealth planes would have been shot down.
Click to expand...

I would not call the F117 70's technology as the maiden flight was not until 1983.

In any case the Serbs were not fighting back with much. We really do not have much in our air force other than F16/F15s in our air force (now that is 1970's technology).

These have been upgraded in some ways but ... :)

We do not have many F22 Raptors (180 were built but maybe half are operational at any given time) and will not have any more due to issues. A colossal nightmare that plane was (and still is).

They still can not get the F-35 off the ground .
 
thinkagain said:
I would not call the F117 70's technology as the maiden flight was not until 1983.

In any case the Serbs were not fighting back with much. We really do not have much in our air force other than F16/F15s in our air force (now that is 1970's technology).

These have been upgraded in some ways but ... :)

We do not have many F22 Raptors (180 were built but maybe half are operational at any given time) and will not have any more due to issues. A colossal nightmare that plane was (and still is).

They still can not get the F-35 off the ground .
Click to expand...

And as it takes a very long time to go from design until finished product when it comes to fighter airplanes it is mostly late 70s early 80s tech like I said.

I wouldn't creaky call the F22 which is well regarded as either the best or one of the very best fighters in the world a colossal nightmare. Expensive yes but also it would appear very effective.
 
braindrain said:
And as it takes a very long time to go from design until finished product when it comes to fighter airplanes it is mostly late 70s early 80s tech like I said.

I wouldn't creaky call the F22 which is well regarded as either the best or one of the very best fighters in the world a colossal nightmare. Expensive yes but also it would appear very effective.
Click to expand...


It is very effective at making pilot's that fly the plane sick !

The F22 has yet to see any combat but, I'm sure it will perform well although some feel it is over reliant on stealth ... which is no longer as stealthy as was hoped.

The nightmare is in part the cost (360 million/plane) but, also the plane requires 30 hours maintenance per 1 hour in the air and suffers a critical failure after every 1.7 hours in the air. The "radar absorbing skin has a "vulnerability to rain" and can not withstand small arms fire.

The nightmare comment was mostly in relation to the political football that surrounded this plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk
 
thinkagain said:
It is very effective at making pilot's that fly the plane sick !

The F22 has yet to see any combat but, I'm sure it will perform well although some feel it is over reliant on stealth ... which is no longer as stealthy as was hoped.

The nightmare is in part the cost (360 million/plane) but, also the plane requires 30 hours maintenance per 1 hour in the air and suffers a critical failure after every 1.7 hours in the air. The "radar absorbing skin has a "vulnerability to rain" and can not withstand small arms fire.

The nightmare comment was mostly in relation to the political football that surrounded this plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaoYz90giTk
Click to expand...
Sorry but I am do not put to much weight in the opinion of a newscaster on the capabilities of military aircraft.

Yes the radar skin doesn't work as well when it's wet but it is still stealthier then a plane without it and no airplanes skin can withstand small arms fire. It's not a tank.

There are plenty of less biased articles out there that compare the F22 against other fighters. You might want to look up a few of them.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Any close air support aircraft is highly dependent on the environment which it operates as well as what tactics it uses to maximize its strengths and minimize its weakness.. The A-10 by the way was designed to operate in high threat environments at very low altitude levels. It was supposed to go up against ZSU-23's and the like and perform frontline, close air support, wild weasel and interdiction missions. That's why it is built so tough. Its not built like your F-16 or F-15 or F-22 or F-35. It is designed to be shot up and keep flying. It has been proven to be able to go into high threat environments back in the first Gulf war. Modern missiles have generally the same warheads they have had since the 80's the improvements have been mainly maneuverability, range and electronic in nature, with the main improvements in electronics. If I was going to design a modern close air support airframe it would use a lot of the design of the A-10 but go pilotless and try to add some more electronic countermeasures and more expendable countermeasures a bit more stealth and either thrust vectoring and or VTOL-STOL capability. I would go to a 57mm Bofors gun with programmable ammunition.
Click to expand...

The A-10 would've been blown out of the sky by the ZSUs and Soviet air defense units. It was obsolete by the time it was first fielded.

Using the first Gulf war as proof of it's success is pointless because the quality of the average Iraqi soldier was incredibly atrocious in quality. The fact that as many A-10s got shot down as they did just goes to show how badly the A-10 would've performed in a conventional Cold War conflict.
 
braindrain said:
Sorry but I am do not put to much weight in the opinion of a newscaster on the capabilities of military aircraft.

Yes the radar skin doesn't work as well when it's wet but it is still stealthier then a plane without it and no airplanes skin can withstand small arms fire. It's not a tank.

There are plenty of less biased articles out there that compare the F22 against other fighters. You might want to look up a few of them.
Click to expand...

I did not ask you to rate the newscaster. Did you listen the link ? to how much a clusterfck and bureaucratic nightmare the process of building plane was. Parts were subcontracted out to 44 different states .. the pentagon knowingly lying about the cost to congress... the huge quality control issues associated with building parts in 44 different states. .. parts that don't work being retooled and refit individually by hand on the final assembly line.

I did not really address how the F22 stacks up against other fighters. I was talking about messed up the program logistics were.

Things were so bad they stopped building F22 after 180 planes. How absurd is that.. to spend all the money on design, and every other phase of the project and once everybody is making all the pieces ... to just stop ??

This is beyond absurd. People should have been hung out to dry over this ... lots of people.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The A-10 would've been blown out of the sky by the ZSUs and Soviet air defense units. It was obsolete by the time it was first fielded.

Using the first Gulf war as proof of it's success is pointless because the quality of the average Iraqi soldier was incredibly atrocious in quality. The fact that as many A-10s got shot down as they did just goes to show how badly the A-10 would've performed in a conventional Cold War conflict.
Click to expand...

Strange, I only see about six A10s shot down during Desert Shield/Storm, not a very high number. The A10 was excellent for the mission it performed and as such put itself in danger due to its tactics and mission. I do not know of one mech that would want an A10 targeting them, they were hell on earth for tanks and other vehicles, not even a Russian would want to face one. The funny thing is we killed off the A10 and instead use attack helicopters to perform the same mission and they are even easier to bring down.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The A-10 would've been blown out of the sky by the ZSUs and Soviet air defense units. It was obsolete by the time it was first fielded.

Using the first Gulf war as proof of it's success is pointless because the quality of the average Iraqi soldier was incredibly atrocious in quality. The fact that as many A-10s got shot down as they did just goes to show how badly the A-10 would've performed in a conventional Cold War conflict.
Click to expand...

No the A-10's performed better than advertised because more than few them got shot to **** and still came back. They were flying them over Bagdad and surrounding area at the time which had some of the densest ADA in the world at the time. The A-10 is and was a good platform and would have faired as well as any other American aircraft in a conventional hot war scenario with the Warsaw Pact forces. Problem is that the skies would be quickly cleaned of aircraft on both sides in such a scenario regardless of what aircraft was used. If enemy and or friendly ADA didn't get them then other aircraft would, until there was little in the way of aircraft that either side would be willing to risk in other than dire circumstance.
 
Casper said:
Strange, I only see about six A10s shot down during Desert Shield/Storm, not a very high number. The A10 was excellent for the mission it performed and as such put itself in danger due to its tactics and mission. I do not know of one mech that would want an A10 targeting them, they were hell on earth for tanks and other vehicles, not even a Russian would want to face one. The funny thing is we killed off the A10 and instead use attack helicopters to perform the same mission and they are even easier to bring down.
Click to expand...

Six A-10s doesn't seem like a lot but Coalition casualties were also incredibly light; the fact that four aircraft were shot down in the first place by SAMs guided by Iraqi ground crews says enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom