Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[jcustis]

It's thread drift, but that's part of my point; no one really wants to. I'm sure there have been plenty of attempts and grand designs on the part of terrorists, but deploying/employing a MANPAD is not a lowest common denominator task.

Downing an airliner might be a horrific, most dangerous event, but it's not the most likely. That's why the obsession with countering a SAM seems misplaced. Perhaps it is just media hype.

I can't imagine anyone has studied it, but I wouldn't be surprised if a SA- variant (no matter the capability of the seaker head) couldn't damage a modern twin-engine jet enough to "bring it down". Single-engine fighters are a different proposition.

[jcustis]

Cordesman's analysis that if Assad remains in power, he will be worse of a boogeyman for Israel, is odd.

There isn't a lot in the historical record to support that, so it makes me wonder if he overstates the influence of that other regional boogeyman, Iran.

Anyone know Cordesman's position on countering or containing Iran? There may be a link.

[carl]

Cordesman's analysis that if Assad remains in power, he will be worse of a boogeyman for Israel, is odd.

Not so odd maybe. If Bashir survives to a large extent it will be because Iran and Hez saved him. If he wants to keep that help coming, he may have to give something back when the time comes.

[jcustis]

I knew of the Viscounts, but neither they or the TU-154 are modern designs though.

I get where you are coming from, but still believe the fear of a SAM is somewhat misplaced.

[carl]

I knew of the Viscounts, but neither they or the TU-154 are modern designs though.

I get where you are coming from, but still believe the fear of a SAM is somewhat misplaced.

Modern designs are built lighter in general than old planes. They didn't know as much about strength of materials in the old days so they tended to over build, the DC-3 being a case in point. And Russian airplanes, well, they're Russian, like the IL-76 that was downed in Mogadishu in 2003. For civil aircraft, fear of shoulder fired SAMs is not misplaced. Civil airplanes just are not built to withstand the effects of a pound or so of explosives blowing up here or there. It a roll of the dice whether the aircraft lives or dies. They are a very big deal to civil airplanes.

[carl]

An A-300 was hit in 2003 by one or two of the much less capable missiles. It was God's own miracle that airplane made it onto the ground. The crew controlled it strictly with engine thrust. You have no idea how hard that is. Those guys are gods.

Two Viscounts were shot down in what was then Rhodesia by SA-7s. A TU-154 was shot down in 1993. And on and on.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/news-...t-down-manpads

There is plenty of empirical evidence that shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles can kill large civil aircraft.

Those things, even the relatively primitive ones like the SA-7 and SA-7B are deadly to civil aircraft that have no defensive systems. Why the insurgents didn't kill a Gryphon flight or two I don't know, maybe they got a cut of the revenue. But they could have any time they wanted to.