in ,

Business Insider says this is what would happen if US and Russia engaged in Syria air war…

Do you agree with the Business Insider analysis?

In a recent Business Insider article titled, “Here’s how an air war between Russia and the US in Syria would go down“, the Jeff Bezos backed publication analyzes what would happen if US and Russia air forces engaged each other in Syria.

BI notes…

After the US downed a Syrian jet making a bombing run on US-backed forces fighting ISIS, Russia threatened to target US and US-led coalition planes West of the Euphrates river in Syria.

But while Russia has some advanced surface-to-air missile systems and very agile fighter aircraft in Syria, it wouldn’t fare well in what would be a short, brutal air war against the US.

Of course BI fails to mention that the US is in Syria illegally, occupying land that belongs to a sovereign nation, and helping support Al Qaeda forces in order to divide the Middle East country.

The lunacy that BI is upset that Syrian jets flew over Syrian airspace to attack Al Qaeda jihadists shows how far off the wagon US propaganda has fallen.

BI then asks the hypothetical, what if US and Russian air forces engaged in battle over Syria?

Here is what Business Insider concluded. At the end of their analysis we ask you, our readers, to give their opinion on the ‘what if’ scenario.

According to Omar Lamrani, a senior military analyst at Stratfor, a geopolitical analysis firm, Russia has “about 25 planes, only about ten of which are dedicated to air superiority (Su-35s and Su-30s), and against that they’ll have to face fifth-gen stealth fighters, dozens of strike fighters, F-15s, F-16s, as well as B-1 and B-52 bombers. And of course the vast US Navy and pretty much hundreds of Tomahawks.”

“Russians have a lot of air defenses, they’re not exactly defenseless by any means,” Lamrani told Business Insider, “But the US has very heavy air superiority.” Even though individual Russian platforms come close to matching, and in some ways exceed the capability of US jets, it comes down to numbers.

So if Russia did follow through with its threat, and target a US aircraft that did not back down West of the Euphrates in Syria, and somehow managed to shoot it down, then what?

“The US coalition is very cautious,” said Lamrani. “The whole US coalition is on edge for any moves from Russia at this point.”

Lamrani also said that while F/A-18Es are more visible and doing most of the work, the US keeps a buffer of F-22 stealth jets between its forces and Russia’s. If Russia did somehow manage to shoot down a US or US-led coalition plane, a US stealth jet would probably return fire before it ever reached the base.

At that point the Russians would have a moment to think very critically if they wanted to engage with the full might of the US Air Force after the eye-for-an-eye shoot downs.

If US surveillance detected a mass mobilization of Russian jets in response to the back-and-forth, the US wouldn’t just wait politely for Russians to get their planes in the sky so they can fight back.

Instead, a giant salvo of cruise missiles would pour in from the USS George H. W. Bush carrier strike group, much like the April 7 strike on Syria’s Sharyat air base. But this time, the missiles would have to saturate and defeat Russia’s missile defenses first, which they could do by sheer numbers if not using electronic attack craft.

Then, after neutering Russia’s defenses, the ships could target the air base, not only destroying planes on the ground but also tearing up the runways, so no planes could take off. At this point US and Coalition aircraft would have free reign to pass overhead and completely devastate Russian forces.

Russia would likely manage to score a couple intercepts and even shoot down some US assets, but overall the Russian contingent in Syria cannot stand up to the US, let alone the entire coalition of nations fighting ISIS.

Russia also has a strong Navy that could target US air bases in the region, but that would require Russia to fire on Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar, which would be politically and technically difficult for them.

This scenario of a hypothetical air war is exceedingly unlikely. Russia knows the numbers are against them and it would “not [be] so easy for the Russians to decide to shoot down a US aircraft,” according to Lamrani.

What do you think?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

What do you think?

15
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
John R. Nolanmy2CentsAndrew PateIan ShearsAndrew Earl Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Hamletquest
Guest
Hamletquest

Well it might be said that this Business Insider hypothetical scenario is somewhat skewed. With the said mag being owned by Bozzo Bezos and the analysis courtesy of Stratfor – a long time CIA contractor.

Briefly bearing this in mind:

Firstly the US do not know the full capability of the Russian defence systems. It appears they are considerably in advance of the US.

Secondly the US through over stretch do not have all this kit readily available.

Thirdly the US chain of command is clearly in disarray.

And fourthly the new enemy target is shaping up to be Iran.

Josie
Guest
Josie

I hate to say it but this article gives the American people a false sense of security! We have been sitting on our a_ _ for years while Russia and China have been building up their military like crazy. We haven’t had any real leadership in this country for years. Now that we have someone that is trying to save this country, I hope, most are working against him. Unless they have a death wish they better stop and join his ranks…God Bless

Tim Webb
Guest
Tim Webb

The reality of this situation is that the war in Syria has been fought on the ground essentially, and it is virtually over, in terms of the destruction of the US-backed terrorists. Thus any aerial conflict between the US and the RAF is a side issue, but would rapidly become extremely bloody if the US decided to launch doomsday attacks on Russian assets in Syria; this would of course be completely unacceptable to Russia. Any US naval assets launching aircraft or missiles against Russian forces would become legitimate targets for Russian submarine and surface vessels; many would be sunk, or… Read more »

John R. Nolan
Guest
John R. Nolan

Sadly, it seems, the American war hungry leaders, and their henchmen, (or women), are intent on global conflict, as they manifest an intrinsic self destruct gene in their makeup, character, (both men and women are now wearing make up), which further displays America’s Scriptural recognition as the new Sodom. Our world has gone into meltdown, the mass media is hyping the proles into an unquenchable lust for war, without any reason for war, against anyone, but purely for the sake of war, as only mass murder will now satisfying the American lust for blood. 1984! One sees it in the… Read more »

Guy
Member
Guy

I really don’t want to speculate or go into any pi$$ing contest as to who would come out on top.We all know that Russia is in Syria legally and the US/West is not . Beating one’s chest on possible scenarios does not help the cause of justice and world peace , 2 things that humanity should strive for. Given a military clash in Syria , knowing the American establishment ,it could escalate to nuclear , although I can’t bring myself to believe that they are that ignorant,in which case , in which case this discussion is a moot point.That Business… Read more »

sierravic
Guest
sierravic

Russia’s primary objective in Syria is not to fight Americans. Russia’s primary objective is to help stabilise the region in order to prevent salafist head choppers spilling over into the Caucasus region and destabilising Russia itself. The reason Russians now consider US and their lapdogs’ planes as targets is because US and their lapdogs have interfered with Russia’s primary objective. Both sides know that if there was a skirmish of any kind, it could very rapidly escalate to the exchange of “gifts” in the form of uranium, plutonium and hydrogen bombs. Bum! Game over, planet. So, reading insane ramblings of… Read more »

Doug Brown
Guest
Doug Brown

It’s a fight no one wants, no one with even a drop of sanity, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. God help us if it does and it escalates, Israel would jump in, Hamas would wet their pants with delight, Jordan would feign horror, Saudi Arabia would be confused (as always), and Turkey? Which way Turkey lands would probably decide it.

Andrew Pate
Guest
Andrew Pate

Isn’t it great how international law works in a war?
In the end its the winner who wins and the loser becomes the bad guy.
International law means didlly shit to the US, it has its own law of might is right.

permopin
Guest
permopin

I used to read the B I for a while, frankly, it was a waste of my time. Financially, I’m no better than I was before, and that says a lot about B I’s military analysis of a war situation. Wars are always good for businesses. and this article is based on that fact. Right now, America doesn’t need a war abroad, it needs peace at home. And a leadership that could bring prosperity for all Americans and not the B I & co.

permopin
Guest
permopin

Just wait for the BI’s advice on where to put your money in the next issues. These people thrive on people’s fear to make money and have no clue about wars.

permopin
Guest
permopin

Just wait for the next issues of BI and where to put your money in precarious times. These people thrive on fear to make money and don’t have a clue about wars. Shameful!

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

The 59 (err well 60) US Raytheon Missile FAIL says it all !

Andrew Earl
Guest
Andrew Earl

The US is awash with hysterical wild eyed psychopaths. God knows what kind of genetic accident has happened in the immigration process.

Ian Shears
Guest
Ian Shears

A Business entity has to make judgments and factor-in issues of air-war here and there. It is thus reasonable for BI to comment. From a Business point of view this scenario allows for the replenishment of a large number of cruise missiles. It allows for Russia to be defeated and the consequent production of many more jets of the type used to defeat them. All-in-all I would say this is a slightly biased report. Though probably it is an accurate one.

my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

The main reason Russia does not have military bases abroad is that they have very advanced military equipment capable of reaching around the Globe. BI is delusional. It is well known in Washington/Pentagon circles that in any military conflict using “traditional” weapons the U.S would lose.

Add to that Iran/Hezbollah and China, the Pentagon knows that any kind of military exercise is suicide.

The fact that things have not as yet blown up is due to the extreme wisdom of the Russians, and particularly Putin.

Stephen Colbert on Russian late night TV: “A strong America, a strong Russia” (Video)

American or Russian feminism…which do you prefer?