SUPPRESSION OF  SYRIAN AIR POWER.. DOES IT TAKE AIR POWER?

for a several weeks now I've been asking some of my old friends a simple question.

Does it take air to air superiority to insure air dominance.

Now, without going into to some long boring War College level discussion on Air Power and Air Dominance, lets look at the question I'm asking.

If you need to insure your enemy can't attack your location from the air, do you need to patrol the air itself or do you need to be able to deny your enemy the ability to fly safely in the air space above your location?

The flying community will tell you, " absolutely.. you need air to air superiority to insure air dominance"... It's what I refer to as "Job Security".

Is it possible to deny your enemy air space operations from the ground?

Let me give you a "hint"...

How many times did the US and the West provide a " no fly zone" in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation?

What was the major contributing factor to breaking the Soviets will to stay in Afghanistan? Hint. The loss of helicopters and "leaders" inside them was extremely high.

Ok, let me get to my point.

The West doesn't need to provide the Syrian rebels with the  coveted " No Fly Zone".

What needs to happen seems to already be underway.

The rebels can be armed to deny the airspace over rebel held land.

The Syrian air force is not the advanced juggernaut the media makes it out to be.

Have anyone seen the MiG or attack helicopters tossing flairs as they conduct their attack runs on the rebels? I don't think so!!!

The Air suppression process for the rebels can be achieved without Western / NATO / air to air operations.

Why go on a high risk mission to attack SAM sites in Syria when you can simply deny the air space of the Syrian air force over held territory?

Why fight at a "force on force" level when you can continue what has been successful for  months, hit and run unconventional tactics?

As I said two days ago, the ability to make the Syrian air force and army plan for air interdiction, something they had to start doing as soon as they lost the MiG, is a process that only slows their offensive operations.

The rebels do not need the skies of Syria clear of  Assad's planes and helicopters.

What they need is the ability to deny air space in the area they are operating.

Asking for NATO " No Fly Zones" is the wrong request.

Asking for anti air weapons and the training to use them; that is the right answer.

Again; as I said two days ago, be careful what you ask for.

Dropping a MiG or a Hind is one thing; shooting down a airliner or another countries transport aircraft; that is a whole different issue.

If the "Friends" of the rebels / insert the GCC here / are going to support the rebels anti air capability, they better have a well thought out plan and limitations.

Someone better do a real good job of vetting the "rebels" who get the training and get access to these types of weapons.

Most of the world believes this process is already underway.. Perception is reality!

Air denial that makes it to the media is a level of bad news Assad and his supporters may react to severely.

 As I said months ago on the topic of " No Fly Zones", be very careful what you ask for.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/201281651250103232.html