Hezbollah's anti-aircraft capacity?

[stud40111]

Does Hezbollah have any anti-aircraft capacity?

It seemed as though in the recent conflict with Israel that Hezbollah had absolutely no way of threatening Israeli aircraft. If they indeed possess no weapons to threaten Israeli aircraft at high altitudes, then what does this say about Iran's ability to defend against American Aircraft, except for when it uses its own aircraft, since Iran, if it possessed weapons that could have helped Hezbollah to bring down Israeli aircraft, would have surely shared those weapons with them?

When answering, please answer based on the best facts available and please use valid logic.

Thanks in advance.

 

[contedicavour]

Does Hezbollah have any anti-aircraft capacity?

It seemed as though in the recent conflict with Israel that Hezbollah had absolutely no way of threatening Israeli aircraft. If they indeed possess no weapons to threaten Israeli aircraft at high altitudes, then what does this say about Iran's ability to defend against American Aircraft, except for when it uses its own aircraft, since Iran, if it possessed weapons that could have helped Hezbollah to bring down Israeli aircraft, would have surely shared those weapons with them?

When answering, please answer based on the best facts available and please use valid logic.

Thanks in advance.

Well, Iran would have had a hard time sending Grumble and Tor long range anti-aircraft missiles to Lebanon. Too big. And too precious, better to leave them around the main Iranian cities and military facilities.
I was however suprised Syria or Iran didn't send some SA-13s on tracked vechicles (or similar systems). They are in great quantities in both Syrian and Iranian arsenals. May be both countries feared Israel would consider such weapons as an aggression by their owners and bomb Damas.
Anyway, the fact that Hezbollahs didn't shoot down some Israeli planes doesn't mean they didn't have the capability, and it especially does not mean that Iran's SAMs are not operational or dangerous !

cheers

 

[aaaditya]

i believe that the hezbollah uses the russian igla shoulder fired surface to surface missiles,in my opinion in the hands of a well trained terrorist these weapons can be quite potent.since they are not as bulky or require as much infrastructure as the larger russian missiles like the tor etc,they are very difficult to neutralise.
they are also cheap and very easy to operate.in a congested airspace they can be a very big headache,they are potent enough to deter any low flying attack aircrafts or attack helicopters and are fearsome weapons of terror against civilian airliners(an example is the nairobi incident ,where a civilian airliner was targetted and its engine destroyed by a shoulder fired sam),i would be more worried by hezbollah's posession of the igla or the stinger than of their posession of the tor or the s300.

 

[stud40111]

So basically there are no man portable or missile systems smaller than the S-300s or Tors, that would be capable of bringing down F-16s and similar aircraft at high altitudes?

 

[Grand Danois]

I would say anything more sophisticated than a MANPAD would be a sitting duck in Southern Lebanon.

 

[BilalK]

I doubt Hezbollah with its finances would be able to maintain long and medium range SAMs - as well as associated air defence systems and such. Such weaponry - if it ever found its way into Lebanon - would likely be in the hands of the Lebonese military.

 

[Waylander]

One of the main advantages of Hizbollah is that they are able to cover their moves and hide their equipment and fire positions. Would be very difficult to achieve this with a SAM-Network which would be easy prey for Wild Weasel missions.
Remember, the problem the IDF had was not destroying their targets but finding them.

 

[Big-E]

Israel has been dropping JDAMs from 30,000+. Whatever man-portables Iran has given them won't fly that high. Iran did not deliever their best weapons to Hezbollah, just run of the mill surplus inventory.

 

[Michael RVR]

One of the main advantages of Hizbollah is that they are able to cover their moves and hide their equipment and fire positions. Would be very difficult to achieve this with a SAM-Network which would be easy prey for Wild Weasel missions.

Not neccesarily true, the serbs managed it fairly well.. tho their performance was less than spectacular regardless.

 

[Waylander]

First you have to compare the serbian area with south Lebanon.
There are much more places to hide your heavy equipment and the area is much bigger.
But nevertheless the serbians were not able to counter the NATO air forces with their SAM-Network.
The Tornado ECR and F-16 Wild Weasel broke enough corridors into this network.
And while conflict went on the serbians just stoppedusing their radar because they were afraid to loose their last stations.

 

[contedicavour]

First you have to compare the serbian area with south Lebanon.
There are much more places to hide your heavy equipment and the area is much bigger.
But nevertheless the serbians were not able to counter the NATO air forces with their SAM-Network.
The Tornado ECR and F-16 Wild Weasel broke enough corridors into this network.
And while conflict went on the serbians just stoppedusing their radar because they were afraid to loose their last stations.

The Serbians weren't looking for the same thing as the Hezbos... Serbia was trying to defend its airspace until it realized it was better to negotiate peace, while the Hezbos were looking for some spectacular success to add to their psychological victory. Imagine an Israeli F16 downed by those guerrillas... though I think Syria feared too much to be considered responsible and probably told the Hezbos not to use whatever SAMs they could have.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

They used ASMs.
It is not like they did not show what they got from Iran and Syria.

 

[stud40111]

They used ASMs.
It is not like they did not show what they got from Iran and Syria.

How do we know that they used SAMs?

And if they did, were they simply Man Portable ones?

 

[Waylander]

ASMs, not SAMs.
My point is that they were not afraid to use ASMs against Israeli ships, so I doubt that using SAMs against IAF would have been forbidden, because it could show that they are supported by Syria, Iran and maybe party of the Lebanese army.

 

[contedicavour]

ASMs, not SAMs.
My point is that they were not afraid to use ASMs against Israeli ships, so I doubt that using SAMs against IAF would have been forbidden, because it could show that they are supported by Syria, Iran and maybe party of the Lebanese army.

I see your point, though launching a couple of C802s available on the international arms market is one thing, launching complex radar guided SAMs from, say, the Bekaa valley, would very easily have been mistaken for Syrian SAM launches.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

Ah, you talking about big SAMs like SA-6 not small ones like Igla or Strela.

As I saif before they would have been nearly useless to the Hisbollah. Even if they are mobile they would be easy prey for the Israeli Wild Weasels as soon as they light up.
The serbians were able to hide most of their ground equipment but they were not able to protect their AA-Network from F-16C and Tornado ECRs. And they had much more space and vegetation.

But I agree that it could make the situation much more silly if the IAF thinks the Syrians shoot at them.