Jump to content

In Syria


Marcello

Recommended Posts

  • 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

 

KV7 How easy would it be to allow AWACS or even something like Mig-31 to give initial targeting info for an area SAM system ? Yes if you have something in the air you might be able to intercept the target directly but it would still seem like a useful capability to have.

 

 

The MIG-31 has something called the MB5U15K air to ground data link, which probably does what you’re thinking. Technical details seem sketchy from a quick google search.

 

Where would cruise missiles come from to hit the SAA? Turkey, Jordan, Israel would all have to give permission and none of them are likely to. Lebanon’s sovereignty might just be flaunted, but probably not. Flying in from Iraq would require Iraqi permission and they’re not likely to grant it given their relations with Iran, and that route is long and pretty flat. A direct flight from the sea straight into Syria has to run the gauntlet of the defenses.

 

I can imagine Jordan turning its back on such an action, but it seems like a moot point since its practically land locked. The coast of Syria is sufficiently mountainous I think it would be very challenging to defend against cruise missiles without an airborne radar. The cruise missiles don't need a 100% success rate, then just need a less than 100% casualty rate. Any single platform releasing them would have a dozen or two, possibly more. That said I very much hope the US doesn't go in that direction; that would obviously poke the bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't get what some of you are expecting. Its a war in an urban environment, of course civilians are going to die. Thats what happens. The question should be why haven't they left after 4 years of fighting? Most everyone else got out of the rebel parts of Aleppo, why not them? If they are families of rebels or supporters of the rebels and chose to stay there then whose fault are their deaths?

ISIL won't let them?

 

There is no ISIL in Aleppo, but other groups who are hardly better. After all it is civil war, in country with ancient traditions of extended family and tribal links, so one member of family killing member of another family (or just siding opposite side) may cause long-going vendetta. Remember Syrian \Palestinian boy publicly beheaded because of his relative serving in Gov forces – guys who done that also got relatives, how do you think this relatives feel now about migrating to Gov-controlled territory where relatives of that boy may meet them?

Above that, rebels were reported to execute those trying to flee Aleppo as treators, including families.

 

Head choppers won't let human shields escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God why?!?

 

Self defense on takeoff from ground fire. Lessons of Afghan.

Guns can be also loaded with flare ammo.

Dubious utility, but since guns are already there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Head choppers won't let human shields escape.

 

Same people some consider moderates... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

God why?!?

 

Self defense on takeoff from ground fire. Lessons of Afghan.

Guns can be also loaded with flare ammo.

Dubious utility, but since guns are already there...

 

It doesn't look like a take off. Or at least if it is, they don't seem to be in any rush to get altitude.

 

Was the practice in Afghanistan to just fire at any place with cover as you overflew it on your way out?

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self defense on takeoff from ground fire. Lessons of Afghan.

Guns can be also loaded with flare ammo.

Dubious utility, but since guns are already there...

Well, if load it with flare and chaff ammo, it can work as pretty good ECM suite part)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wouldn't expect any long range SAM system to be very effective against terrain following cruise missiles unless the radar was highly elevated with no terrain masking the area to be defended. I also would expect S-300 and S-400 to have fairly long minimum ranges (these are two stage SAMs, correct?) which would make them far less effective against cruise missiles that might not be detected until very close. I suspect a S-300 or S-400 missilecosts at least as much as a BGM-109; whether its worth engaging or not is up to the Russians.

 

I believe there are Pansir systems in country as well however.

S-300/400 has various missiles for various duties. Long and medium ranges, ABM duties, and some of them has extremely short min range and low min height. Also it has towered radar for work against low-flying targets like cruise missiles.

 

How easy would it be to allow AWACS or even something like Mig-31 to give initial targeting info for an area SAM system ? Yes if you have something in the air you might be able to intercept the target directly but it would still seem like a useful capability to have.

 

 

 

Far more difficult than it sounds. If you just mean someone calling up the SAM battery on the radio, that's easy of course. If you mean have the AWACs transmit its picture via a secure datalink like Link16, difficult but clearly can be done by E-3s to SAMs and E-2s to ships. If you mean actually handle the targeting of the engagement in areas where the SAMs own radar and LOS commands to the missile can't reach, then you're talking about NIFCA and the E-2D, something they've only recently gotten to work and is far more complex than the idea implies. In fact I'm not aware of another organizatoin that can hand off engagements like that outside the USN.

 

 

On top of the Mig-31...the Chinese HQ-9 and HQ-16 series of SAM's can datalink with AWACs and other ground radar stations as well. Obviously these aren't in Syria, but the possibility of SAMs datalinking with AWACs is quite possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Head choppers won't let human shields escape.

 

Same people some consider moderates... :)

 

bojan, whose hypocrisy are you pointing out here? The US?

 

Hypocrites abound in this shit show, you have to be more specific :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another opinion from Rus expert on why S-300 was moved recently to Syria: previously, long-range AA cover of Tartus and ships nearby was based on S-300F-armed warships (“Moscow” and “Varyag”) that were patrolling nearby in shifts. But they are limited in operation time and need to go to base for repairs, and 3rd RusNavy ship armed with S-300F, “Ustinov”, is still under repair. In addition, nuclear-powered “Peter the Great” is also armed by S-300F but he is only expected to arrive in pair with “Kuznetsov”. So land-based system is just replacement of navy one….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was the practice in Afghanistan to just fire at any place with cover as you overflew it on your way out?

 

That and if anything showed up, it could suppress it until it got out of range.

Il-28s were popular for that reason, IIRC they had lowest loss/sortie ratio of any aircraft used in Afghan, attributed to the positive effect of rear gunner suppressing potential targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bojan, whose hypocrisy are you pointing out here? The US?

 

Nope, certain posters round here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Il-28s were popular for that reason, IIRC they had lowest loss/sortie ratio of any aircraft used in Afghan, attributed to the positive effect of rear gunner suppressing potential targets.

 

In addition they were relatively big twin-engine, oversized aircraft of late 1940th generation, able to withstand lot of damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow still the same DK. Missing the point with vigor. I'll use smaller words next time.

 

Think procurement cost vs operational force multiplier. Not a matter of cheap vs expensive. The Generals don't GAS how much shit costs.

Yeah they do. They're smarter than you think and everything you listed: "Less sorties, smaller loads, more targets serviced, less risk to air crews" is always about economic efficiency. What, you think aircraft, munitions, and aircrew members grow on trees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wow still the same DK. Missing the point with vigor. I'll use smaller words next time.

 

Think procurement cost vs operational force multiplier. Not a matter of cheap vs expensive. The Generals don't GAS how much shit costs.

Yeah they do. They're smarter than you think and everything you listed: "Less sorties, smaller loads, more targets serviced, less risk to air crews" is always about economic efficiency. What, you think aircraft, munitions, and aircrew members grow on trees?

You're conflating procurement with force management. COCOM CDRS have a budget. Weapons cost do not impact their funds. They let DC worry about that. We use PGMs to wack a single dude all day long. But what do i know i only manage new equipment fielding for a two star HQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

God why?!?

 

Self defense on takeoff from ground fire. Lessons of Afghan.

Guns can be also loaded with flare ammo.

Dubious utility, but since guns are already there...

 

It doesn't look like a take off. Or at least if it is, they don't seem to be in any rush to get altitude.

 

Was the practice in Afghanistan to just fire at any place with cover as you overflew it on your way out?

 

 

It looks like they are training to suppress the target they are about to drop near, although flyovers of a target at that altitude looks like something you really want to avoid - but if you get told to drop somewhere and find it is already crawling with stuff it cannot hurt to be trained to blast away, although aborting is probably the better option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

God why?!?

 

Self defense on takeoff from ground fire. Lessons of Afghan.

Guns can be also loaded with flare ammo.

Dubious utility, but since guns are already there...

Was the practice in Afghanistan to just fire at any place with cover as you overflew it on your way out?

USAF trains on corkscrew ascents to limit exposure outside the airbase footprint. Ive seen C-5s do it. Quite impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of the Mig-31...the Chinese HQ-9 and HQ-16 series of SAM's can datalink with AWACs and other ground radar stations as well. Obviously these aren't in Syria, but the possibility of SAMs datalinking with AWACs is quite possible.

This has been done at least as far back as ODS in '91 as I noted. I'm sure there is a Russian equivalent, if they were to actually dedicate AWACs aircraft to that theater, which they will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was the practice in Afghanistan to just fire at any place with cover as you overflew it on your way out?

USAF trains on corkscrew ascents to limit exposure outside the airbase footprint. Ive seen C-5s do it. Quite impressive.

 

This I'm familiar with. That pattern I believe was given a name for a mountain city/air port in the old Yugo I believe. The Il-76 in comparison is making no attempt to gain altitude; I agree with the assessment this was just training. Though the practice of using actual supressing fire (not chaff) from a four engined cargo plane still seems dubious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

God why?!?

 

Self defense on takeoff from ground fire. Lessons of Afghan.

Guns can be also loaded with flare ammo.

Dubious utility, but since guns are already there...

Was the practice in Afghanistan to just fire at any place with cover as you overflew it on your way out?

USAF trains on corkscrew ascents to limit exposure outside the airbase footprint. Ive seen C-5s do it. Quite impressive.

 

There is also this crowdpleasing method, that probably works better in places where they dont have MANPADs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Berlin was blasted from the air for four years, and yet, the Russian Army had go door to door to clear it.

 

Not saying that the rifleman would not be needed, but using B-1s and B-52s basically as CAS platforms for special forces is not what they were intended for. As for the people of Raqqa, they might be innocent, but the time for that judgment is long passed.

 

In fact, going door to door with rifles and tanks and artillery would kill more civilians than an actual WW2 armada type bombing.

 

Benefit of going to door versus just blasting from the air....the amount of intelligence you are bound to collect can be priceless. Prisoners, documents, cell phones, laptops, etc. can provide a massive insight into the organization. And don't forget the many locals who will for sure cooperate and point out the ISIS sympathizers.

 

The payoff of taking the enemy Capital by force is intel?

 

Don't see it. The payoff is that your enemies lost, and were destroyed in the capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I'm familiar with. That pattern I believe was given a name for a mountain city/air port in the old Yugo I believe. The Il-76 in comparison is making no attempt to gain altitude; I agree with the assessment this was just training. Though the practice of using actual supressing fire (not chaff) from a four engined cargo plane still seems dubious to me.

 

Sarajevo approach, before that it was called Khe Sanh approach. As Roman noted, also practiced by Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

Same for takeoff, here is SOP Soviet takeoff from Afghan, it is from a movie "Afghan Breakdown", but includes all SOP elements, steep accent, corkscrew pattern and flares. @ 1:25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx4kWJLMKNM

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...