Jump to content

In Syria


Marcello

Recommended Posts

But once again, if Russia WAS informed by the strike beforehand, its curious that they didnt bother to tell theri allies whom were being bombed.

So why are they there? If they arent to protect the Syrian regime and those that aid them, what is the point of this dog and pony show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    3237

  • Simon Tan

    1637

  • Stuart Galbraith

    1223

  • Josh

    923

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Syrian AD command released a statement that they had detected and engaged the incoming missiles.  As is the usual with these cases, whatever effect they had did not prevent at least some of the munitions hitting targets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But once again, if Russia WAS informed by the strike beforehand, its curious that they didnt bother to tell theri allies whom were being bombed.

So why are they there? If they arent to protect the Syrian regime and those that aid them, what is the point of this dog and pony show?

What makes you so sure they are not passing on such information ? The information given to Russia if at all is likely vague e.g. 'hitting installations in z region in next 8 hours' and that is not enough to make the attacks ineffective even if passed on, at least to the point where it would be obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But once again, if Russia WAS informed by the strike beforehand, its curious that they didnt bother to tell theri allies whom were being bombed.

So why are they there? If they arent to protect the Syrian regime and those that aid them, what is the point of this dog and pony show?

What you makes you think, the Russians have a problem with the Israelis bombing Hezbollah? Iran is actually fighting Russia when it comes to controlling Syria, so Russia will probably not have any problems with the Israelis stopping the Iranians / Hezbollah from smuggling weapons into Lebanon or any other place outside of the fighting area in Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Think about it this way...

1. Both Turkey and Israel can easily destroy Russia's expeditionary forces air force without much effort (purely by quantity of aircraft never mind quality of air force's).

2. It's not in Russia's interest to defend vigorously against either Turkey or Israel as this would result in further raids. 

3. Hence Russia will absorb these raids whilst hoping not to attract to much attention.

Russia getting the boots in Syria from the Isrealis not attract world attention?  You're kidding, right?  CNN would be running pieces 24/7 about the cowardly, pathetic Russians and Western opinion of Russia would sink to a level beyond contempt.

If the Israelis and Turks thought anything even remotely this dimissive, one assumes that both would have acted more forcefully in the past.  For instance, when you say that the Turkish Air Force can easily defeat Russian SU-35's, remember that the S-400 battery would be working in unison with Russian fighters.  These are high altitude engagements, so the S-400 dominates a large chunk of Syria and Turkish airspace.  Also, Erdogan would have to be a fool to believe that he could fight Russia to his south without having to fight Russia to his north as well.

The Israelis have F-35's and F-15's, so would certinaly be a more formidable opponent than Turkey.  OTOH,  its small size means that it lacks the strategic depth necessary for its air force assets to be immune from counterattack by missile forces.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But once again, if Russia WAS informed by the strike beforehand, its curious that they didnt bother to tell theri allies whom were being bombed.

So why are they there? If they arent to protect the Syrian regime and those that aid them, what is the point of this dog and pony show?

Russia maintains presence there to provide Assad with various new military capabilities through a technological edge, securing a steady but slow victory over the rebel bois.

The air defenses are there just in case. Israel has an agreement with Russia - but its bases could become threatened by others. Best to have air defenses just in case, than not having it and regret it later.

21 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Maybe the stealth worked as was promised by the manufacturer. The S400 though is at least a generation ahead of the US Patriot system and has been in service since 2007 if I remember it right. It lacks the anti ballistic defence capability though. 

It's okay, you have plenty of time to clarify this very wrong statement.

4 hours ago, Josh said:

or else so cheap that a swarm of them can be employed (sDB, Delilah).

Delilahs aren't cheap. JSOWs aren't cheap. Cruise missiles in general aren't cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Russia getting the boots in Syria from the Isrealis not attract world attention?  You're kidding, right?  CNN would be running pieces 24/7 about the cowardly, pathetic Russians and Western opinion of Russia would sink to a level beyond contempt.

If the Israelis and Turks thought anything even remotely this dimissive, one assumes that both would have acted more forcefully in the past.  For instance, when you say that the Turkish Air Force can easily defeat Russian SU-35's, remember that the S-400 battery would be working in unison with Russian fighters.  These are high altitude engagements, so the S-400 dominates a large chunk of Syria and Turkish airspace.  Also, Erdogan would have to be a fool to believe that he could fight Russia to his south without having to fight Russia to his north as well.

The Israelis have F-35's and F-15's, so would certinaly be a more formidable opponent than Turkey.  OTOH,  its small size means that it lacks the strategic depth necessary for its air force assets to be immune from counterattack by missile forces.

Russia has 10 Su24M, 6 Su34, 6 Su35S, 1 A-50U Mainstay and 1 S400 battery in Syria based at Latakia. Given that the Su35S is the only plane capable of air to air engagements, that means that Turkeys 260 F16’s (of all versions) would have to suffer a 43 to 1 loss rate to gain a potential air superiority mission. Can you really believe that would happen? Turkey and Israel have had years to plan an air superiority war over Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...It's okay, you have plenty of time to clarify this very wrong statement....

Russia has historically invested in SAM systems compared to the US. The Russian S400 has a layered approach to air defence with the Pantsir to provide close in defence along with the 9K333 Verba MANPAD for pop up targets. The S400 has a range of different missiles for different engagements...

9M96               Altitude 30km

                        Range 40km

9M96-2           Altitude 30km

                        Range 120km

48N6D            Altitude 27km

                        Range 200km

40N6               Altitude 30km

                        Range 400km

The Pantsir has Altitude 15km

                        Range 20 km

 

The S400 SAM can engage large radar cross section, slow moving and at height aircraft at a maxinum range of 400km (targets i.e. tankers and AWACS). Smaller range missiles are more manurable and are designed for anti- fighter targets. I don’t know the max range of the S400 tracking range but it should be around 600km.

The Patriot max tracking range is 150km. It lacks a lot of features of the S400 system such as the multiple missiles for different targets. It also doesn’t have a layered approach to combat tactics.

Just because it’s Russian doesn’t mean that it’s inferior in quality. Just look at the SAM's in the Yom Kuiper war. 

Take your time to reply 😀

 

Edited by TrustMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Russia has 10 Su24M, 6 Su34, 6 Su35S, 1 A-50U Mainstay and 1 S400 battery in Syria based at Latakia. Given that the Su35S is the only plane capable of air to air engagements, that means that Turkeys 260 F16’s (of all versions) would have to suffer a 43 to 1 loss rate to gain a potential air superiority mission. Can you really believe that would happen? Turkey and Israel have had years to plan an air superiority war over Syria.

Turkey's problem with the Russia lays not so much to the south as it does to the north.  The Russian Air Force has plenty of air bases within range of Turkey, and its surface attack missile capabilities, (air, surface and sea launched) are far beyond anything Turkey has.  So the Turkish problem in the war you propose is not so much an air war over Syria as it is the air and missile war over Turkey fought from across the Black Sea.  (Turkey would also be under heavy missile attacks from Syria, from Russian frontal aviation, and from cruise missile submarines of course).

S-400 simultaneous engagement rate is 160 targets versus maybe 24 for the dozen aircraft you list of the SU-34 and SU-35 types.  Without neutralizing the S-400 system, there is no talk to be had of "air superiority" over Syria.

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Russia has historically invested in SAM systems compared to the US.

So the US has, in fact, NOT funded, and completed the development of systems like the Patriot, THAAD, Aegis, and GMD?

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

The Russian S400 has a layered approach to air defence with the Pantsir to provide close in defence along with the 9K333 Verba MANPAD for pop up targets.

Neither are part of the S-400 system. They're just sometimes deployed with it. There is no point in talking about layers when the discussion is about a specific layer.

Yeah, the Patriot, according to your logic, is layered as well. It can be supported by various assets like Iron Dome, IM-VSHORAD, Avengers, and LAV-AD, depending on what kind of forces are tagged with the Patriot. Stingers are still there as well, and there are some anti-drone systems operational.

The supporting elements may vary depending on the user of the Patriot.

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

The S400 SAM can engage large radar cross section, slow moving and at height aircraft at a maxinum range of 400km (targets i.e. tankers and AWACS). Smaller range missiles are more manurable and are designed for anti- fighter targets. I don’t know the max range of the S400 tracking range but it should be around 600km.

That's great. The THAAD can do more.

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

The Patriot max tracking range is 150km. It lacks a lot of features of the S400 system such as the multiple missiles for different targets. It also doesn’t have a layered approach to combat tactics.

Literally the PAC-2 GEM series (several sub-variants optimized versus different targets) and the PAC-3MSE. One is more suitable for air breathing targets with some ABM capability, the other is in reverse of that.

There are also the Stunner missiles that Poland buys for its own Patriot.

And of course there are various battle management systems, the latest of which is the IBCS, in production for Poland and the US.

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Just because it’s Russian doesn’t mean that it’s inferior in quality. Just look at the SAM's in the Yom Kuiper war. 

Just because it has a better range, doesn't mean it is a generally better system.

The S-400 was not made in response to the Patriot, and the Patriot not in response to any Soviet system. The US and Russia organize their layers differently. The S-400 comes firmly between the Patriot and THAAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But once again, if Russia WAS informed by the strike beforehand, its curious that they didnt bother to tell theri allies whom were being bombed.

So why are they there? If they arent to protect the Syrian regime and those that aid them, what is the point of this dog and pony show?

We have no reason to believe that the Syrians weren’t informed. What exactly would they do about it?

and as for the Russian mission, it is to preserve the regime. Picking a fight with Israel does not accomplish that. The IAFs targets are probably predominantly Iranian; they probably don’t hurt the civil war effort appreciably. Which is a calculated effort from the Israeli side of the fence to make this process palatable. I think the Russians and Israelis are in perfect agreement on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russian mission is to protect their influence on the regime. The Israelis are actually helping them with that by posing a constant threat. In the end the boots on the ground are Iranian and they would quickly install a puppet in Syria, if they would be free to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Josh said:

We have no reason to believe that the Syrians weren’t informed. What exactly would they do about it?

and as for the Russian mission, it is to preserve the regime. Picking a fight with Israel does not accomplish that. The IAFs targets are probably predominantly Iranian; they probably don’t hurt the civil war effort appreciably. Which is a calculated effort from the Israeli side of the fence to make this process palatable. I think the Russians and Israelis are in perfect agreement on this issue.

Fill the area with Pantsirs? Put a CAP? Which would not do the slightest good probably, but they dont seem to have even done that.

 The whole point of the mission is to preserve the regime, agreed. But against what? The only people threatening the regime right now are ISIS, which they dont seem to want to fight, or Israel, which whom they wont dare pick a fight. They dont fight Turkey that is arguably invading. They dont fight the Americans or the British whom are there without permission. The only people they seem to bomb are the rebels whom dont seem to be in any position to cause much trouble. But equally they dont seem inclined to finish them off with a ground offensive either, presumably because it would create a lot of casualties and remove further reason for Russia's presence.

Its a Potemkin village of an intervention. It looks impressive, Russia is on the world stage again. But is it achieving anything? Not a damn thing I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The only people threatening the regime right now are ISIS, which they dont seem to want to fight, or Israel, which whom they wont dare pick a fight

The remaining rebels are not ISIS, and Israel's objective is not to overthrow Assad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, lets look at it like this. If there is a raid in the vicinity do you, 

A Allow them to shoot first.

B Shoot first because by the time you get your system up and running you have probably left it too late.

Fairly easy calculation to make, right? 

You are left with two possible conclusions. Either they didnt see it coming, or politically, they thought it best not to do anything about it, or for that matter, warn any of their allies that the attack is underway.

 

 

This is the mindset that leads to shooting down commercial aircrafts. If it is an Airbus, I am sure you would contain your mass posting ability, but if it is a 747, the please, God, save not only the Queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ISIS still exist, and seem according to some experts are ready to try and make a go over the border in Iraq.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/kurdistan-region-calls-for-unity-against-isis-threats-666902

But even when ISIS were a major threat in the country, Russia wasnt dealing with it. If they had, it wouldn't have come to the doors of Baghdad. It was the Iraqi's, the Kurds and their Western Backers that dealt with that problem.

No, I know you are not planning on overthrowing Assad. But you are attacking the tools he uses to maintain himself in power. They are (and im not criticizing it) destroying his weaponry, destroying the Iranians weaponry. Assuming the latter disappeared, Its difficult to see that he would be strong enough to maintain his position. That is to my mind wholly against Russia's interest, but they dont seem interested in stopping it.

So here is the point, if Russia is not fighting ISIS, and its not doing anything to preserve the means by which Assad remains in power, there doesn't seem much point in remaining there. What are they doing other than maintaining the Kremlins position of being an influence in the middle east?

 Its even less relevant to day where they occasionally drop a bomb on a few rebels to pretend they are still needed. But they aren't, its the Iranians that are doing the heavy lifting and Russia is just pretending its regionally important. It wont even act when allies around it are being bombed. That to my mind doesnt sound like they have a role there other than flying the flag.

Contentious point of view? Probably. But if the Russian military were dubious about their taking part in this operation, Im going to side with them and say they were right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adam Peter said:

This is the mindset that leads to shooting down commercial aircrafts. If it is an Airbus, I am sure you would contain your mass posting ability, but if it is a 747, the please, God, save not only the Queen.

Well Iran and Russia both have the form for that dont they? And yet they didn't respond when they actually ARE under attack.

I can kick this around for you as many times as you like, but none of this makes a damn bit of sense. How do you protect a regime by not protecting the regime?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So the US has, in fact, NOT funded, and completed the development of systems like the Patriot, THAAD, Aegis, and GMD?...

Neither are part of the S-400 system. They're just sometimes deployed with it. There is no point in talking about layers when the discussion is about a specific layer.

Yeah, the Patriot, according to your logic, is layered as well. It can be supported by various assets like Iron Dome, IM-VSHORAD, Avengers, and LAV-AD, depending on what kind of forces are tagged with the Patriot. Stingers are still there as well, and there are some anti-drone systems operational.

The supporting elements may vary depending on the user of the Patriot.

That's great. The THAAD can do more.

Literally the PAC-2 GEM series (several sub-variants optimized versus different targets) and the PAC-3MSE. One is more suitable for air breathing targets with some ABM capability, the other is in reverse of that...

 

You asked me about the advantages of the S400 against the US Patriot. I gave a response about that subject. Posting stuff about THAAD or Aegis was NOT the topic I was discussing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I can kick this around for you as many times as you like, but none of this makes a damn bit of sense. How do you protect a regime by not protecting the regime?

What does Russia gain by having a war with Israel? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, I know you are not planning on overthrowing Assad. But you are attacking the tools he uses to maintain himself in power.

There is a very clear separation between the tools Iran and its proxies dedicate to each of their adversaries.

Against Assad's opponents, Iran and proxies may, for example, dedicate many actual fighters, their elite even. As well as light high mobility vehicles, some light AFVs in some extreme cases, some very light artillery, and short range weaponry like ATGMs, and basically focus on close range fighting. They advance, seize territory, and conduct military operations in a very conventional way, because they're fighting peers or near peers.

Against Israel the balance totally shifts. They try to avoid direct engagements as much as possible, and rely only on strategic weapons of which they don't have nearly enough to start bombing anyone else.

That means ballistic missiles (SR and MR), cruise missiles, long range missiles, suicide drones, and conventional drones. The entire strategy is to play hide and seek with these weapons.

So if you see an IAF strike in Syria, it's 99% against something that Iran and Syria would have never used against anyone that isn't a state actor. Otherwise they'd lose capabilities that hold serious political weight.

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

You asked me about the advantages of the S400 against the US Patriot. I gave a response about that subject. Posting stuff about THAAD or Aegis was NOT the topic I was discussing.

Yes, but you used entirely useless metrics like range. The S-400 has a greater range than Patriot, but it's entirely irrelevant because it's built as a higher tier system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That's great. The THAAD can do more.

Certainly that'll be why S-500 was developed.

Quote

Yeah, the Patriot, according to your logic, is layered as well. It can be supported by various assets like Iron Dome, IM-VSHORAD, Avengers, and LAV-AD, depending on what kind of forces are tagged with the Patriot. Stingers are still there as well, and there are some anti-drone systems operational.

Iron Dome and Israeli Patriots have the technical capability for data fusion, etc?  I take it that this is a local modification and not extended to US or other Patriot systems?

Quote

The supporting elements may vary depending on the user of the Patriot.

Which system has more radars available?  I didn't realize that Patriot had anything like the Nobu LF radars in its network. What is Patriot's anti-stealth capabilities at the moment?

Quote

There are also the Stunner missiles that Poland buys for its own Patriot.

Here's a Raytheon pamphlet about the Polish systems from around 2015

Patriot_for_Poland_Facts.pdf (raytheon.com)

 

Quote

Just because it has a better range, doesn't mean it is a generally better system.

Off the top, the key system characteristics list includes -

1.  Anti-stealth  

2.  Simultaneous engagement rate.  

3.  360 degree engagement capability 

4.  High PK per engagement.

6.  Long range.

7.  Battlefield data fusion and AD networking.

8.  Robust ECCM capabilities.

9.  Effective system defenses, (active, ECM, and concealment/decoy.

 

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, seahawk said:

They want to control the regime not protect it.

Perhaps, but are they even doing that? They seemingly cant control Syria's relationship with Iran or Hezbollah, or its occasional chemical weapons use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Perhaps, but are they even doing that? They seemingly cant control Syria's relationship with Iran or Hezbollah, or its occasional chemical weapons use.

I ask again.  What does Russia have to gain from having a war with Israel?  Why would they want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...