Is not the Raptor too much to bomb ISIL?

[+Stratos]

I have not been following the ISIL army development, but I think they don't have any advanced SAM/AAA. Are the Raptor, the Vipers, Tornados and the rest of the NATO airforces needed to bomb some ISIL buildings and troops? Something like the Super Tucano or the Texan II will be more suited right? Or do ISIL have some SAMS and modern AAA looted from old Iraqi arsenals?

 

Thanks.

[Milktrout]

You need precision weapons, heavy lifting, and not to have the PR disaster of losing an aircraft.   To do that you need to fly high, carry a decent loadout, and have precision capability.

[+Stratos]

Well, both the Texan II and the Super Tucano are capable of carrying PGM. No heavy lifting that's true, and as there are no friendly troops on the ground it does not need to loiter for long. Go in, bomb, go out.

[warthog64]

I'm not certain, but I'm sure ISIL has some MANPADS like the SA-7, SA-14, etc. These weapons are easy to get on the black market. In order to evade these you need to fly high and obviously small prop aircraft aren't the best way to do this. Milktrout covered the other reasons perfectly though.

Edited September 29, 2014 by warthog64

[+daddyairplanes]

Raptors were used over Syria due SYRIA still having a very modern IADS. While the targets were low tech, the environment was not.

[B52STRATO]

The upside is that the stealth "dinosaur" progressively receives its combat-proof license.

[+Gepard]

That the syrian air defence is worth the money we have seen last year, when they had blown a turkish F-4E from sky. And this Phantom had had a very modern jammer system on board. So the Raptor is the best choice for operations over Syria.

More cheaper it would be to make a telephone call to Assad.

[Peugeot205]

Something like the Super Tucano or the Texan II will be more suited right? 

 

Do they have the needed fire power? The needed range? The needed electronic protecion? No. 

[+JediMaster]

That the syrian air defence is worth the money we have seen last year, when they had blown a turkish F-4E from sky. And this Phantom had had a very modern jammer system on board. So the Raptor is the best choice for operations over Syria.

More cheaper it would be to make a telephone call to Assad.

 

What's the point of talking when neither side is listening?

[+MigBuster]

MANPADs are a given considering both countries had stocks - wonder if they have any modern Western types as part of building them up again?

 

Syria is supposed to have SA-22 Pantsir type systems - although I suppose ISIL could have a few as well by now.

 

There have been posts regarding an F-15 getting damaged by AAA - probably nothing.

 

You thought it was a mess before.................

[+MigBuster]

The real reason for sending them in was for these shots

 

 

 

 

[macelena]

Yeah, ISIS probably doesn´t have SAMs, just like Donbass reb...nevermind.

 

Anyway, why does the USAF send Raptors? Because they can

[MAKO69]

The new girl on the block has to earn her keep and keep her teeth sharp, that's all. We are a'paying she'd better be a'workin'.

[+SayethWhaaaa]

You thought it was a mess before.................

 

Wait until someone has to perform CSAR in Syria. You'll miss these carefree days...

[+Zurawski]

The act of making war of any level is not a practical venue to assess whether one had brought "too big a stick" to the fight...

[warthog64]

That's true about Syria, their air defense system is very capable and real! I'd only worry about MANPADS in Iraq, but in Syria the F-22 is the best choice to evade radar guided missiles.

 

Syria certainly has modern Russian air defense systems like the SA-22, and plenty of older yet still capable SAM systems as well. Let's not forget that they have MiG-29's too!

 

Iraq may have been given U.S. made stinger missiles in the last two years or so but I'm not sure. So ISIL could easily get their hands on them if so.

 

Syrian rebels have been supplied with Western weapons, so it's possible some of them may have been acquired by ISIL since then.

Edited September 30, 2014 by warthog64

[Milktrout]

To the original topic - depending how you look at it for 98% of missions flown any manned modern airframe is overkill.  Starting in the early 1960s aircraft had the range and payload to fly the same missions (but lacked the precision).  Subsonic straight and level bomb trucking to kill poor people is a remarkably boring business. 

[+Dave]

Always bring you starters to the big game. 

[+Typhoid]

Always bring you starters to the big game. 

 

yep.  Especially in range of high threat, modern air defense environment which Syria is.

[+JediMaster]

Also, no amount of flight testing reveals the kinks and issues that need to be worked out like real combat does. Bringing it to a fight that is not the most difficult possible situation gives them a chance to figure things out without risking high losses.

[eagle2046]

Appears that the bad guys now have much of military hardware we left behind. Probably don't have the skills to use some of the more complex systems, but they might soon.