Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    3224

  • Simon Tan

    1633

  • Stuart Galbraith

    1206

  • Josh

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

Interview with Russian specialist on Pantsir in Syria and Libya,

 

https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/42/Russian_Pantsir_Air_Defense_System__Sitting_duck_or_Top_Dog_#.Xu0dIkBFyUk

 

Interesting tidbit - one of the systems lost to the IAF this year was tracked by a cell phone left by one of the operators.

Doesn't sound believable. It is an order of magnitude harder to track a specific cellphone than any radar, even if said radar was only activated briefly.

 

It's certainly within the capability of the IDF, but logically should not be used because it's a less accurate, less reliable, more dangerous method.

 

 

Sounded to me like what the Russians are saying is that the Pantsir crew thought they were safe because it was shut down, but it wasn't safe because a cell phone on board was being tracked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression this type of decoy was produced in various forms since the 80's. Newer versions probably have higher fidelity - I think they can generate IR signatures that look realistic as well as being radar reflectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is anything the Israelis can be counted on for, it is bombing the hell out of Syria in spite of itself. That is Israel's game.

 

How much Israel and Israelis reveal of the cutting edge western capability they are subsidized with in doing so is the question. That is Russia's game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think radar is as simple as coating it with Mylar and again, I think that is a trick going back decades. I think even IR emitters are a very old hat. I suspect the newest trick is probably being able to fool an IIR sensor, which probably takes a bit more high fidelity of IR management compared to just generating a hot spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is anything the Israelis can be counted on for, it is bombing the hell out of Syria in spite of itself. That is Israel's game.

 

How much Israel and Israelis reveal of the cutting edge western capability they are subsidized with in doing so is the question. That is Russia's game.

Everyone's tech is subsidized. Get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel and Israelis just couldn't resist being the first to use their shiny new F-35s in combat. Over Syria, naturally, as flexing on and over that country appears to be something of a must for them.

 

Russia's intelligence gathering apparatus probably could not get down there fast enough, as what Israel flaunts, Russia will one day face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moscow might see it the same way. The calculation may have been that the Israelis would not be able to refrain from using its subsidized new F-35s against its historical punching bag. Particularly if given a little extra prodding in the form of a well-publicized deployment of missiles there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly this is exactly why F-22 was barred from export by an act of Congress. The thought was it would pretty immediately be sold to Israel and see pretty immediate use. That and the IDF was a little too friendly with Chyna! around that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a thought would not be a stretch, as I think Israel and Israelis would use the kitchen sink in its perpetual rolling thunder 2 campaign over there. They have achieved such air dominance that being able to bomb Syria anywhere, anytime has become an expectation to be maintained for them, not an achievement.

 

Russian SAM battery officers are probably required to rotate into the Syrian theater, to get eyes and hands and ears on the best they may ever have to face one day. The constant is in knowing the Israelis won't be able to resist giving it up to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, Russians gonna Russian. The US isn't going to lose Eastern Europe because of tech; if that conflict ever happens it will be lack of will. And worst case, we fall back to Western Europe. This is why some people argue whether we should be there, and I would agree that including anything pass Poland was a stupid, stupid mistake. Even Poland was a stretch, but I feel you can count on the Poles to fight to the last Russian or the last Pole, whichever comes first. So including them made a certain sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moscow might see it the same way. The calculation may have been that the Israelis would not be able to refrain from using its subsidized new F-35s against its historical punching bag. Particularly if given a little extra prodding in the form of a well-publicized deployment of missiles there.

Same way Russia sent its S-400, S-300, Pantsirs, Kalibrs, Iskanders, and its most advanced aircraft to Syria, plus unconfirmed claims of T-14 tests?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, Russians gonna Russian. The US isn't going to lose Eastern Europe because of tech; if that conflict ever happens it will be lack of will. And worst case, we fall back to Western Europe. This is why some people argue whether we should be there, and I would agree that including anything pass Poland was a stupid, stupid mistake. Even Poland was a stretch, but I feel you can count on the Poles to fight to the last Russian or the last Pole, whichever comes first. So including them made a certain sense.

The narrative driving it was at least in part the Trump White House desire to have as many warm bodies as possible to fight the War on Terror . Because Germany and France were not stumping up enough for their liking (something to do with Freedom Fries), the East Europeans looked a good bet, and so they have been. The irony is now that conflict is (at least temporarily) over, the reciprocal agreement to defend THEIR nations from attack is burdensome, hence why so many Trump supporters are so willing to backpedal on it. Georgia in particular bust a gut in Afghanistan on America's behalf. All they got for it was increasingly estranged relations and a US wholly unwilling to back them up when they asked for it.

 

The irony is, all this could have been avoided two ways. Firstly by Russia objecting to NATO expansion, which contrary to the narrative, they did not till it was over. And secondly by being such good allies in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the US wouldnt have needed to hoover up all these new members to NATO. The irony is, if they had done half of what they have done in Syria and Libya (not to mention Sudan) In Afghanistan and Iraq, there likely would be no expanded NATO beyond Poland. Although in my view, even that In Putins eyes retrospectively would have been too much. I dont think it was expansion that bothered them, I think in large part it is the requirement of a narrative of expansion was necessary to justify military expansion.

 

But, ive kicked this narrative around before, Im sure people recall it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary aim of the war on terror was arguably to 'bite off more than can be chewed' so that the most bellicose neoconservatives will have some permanent war to preside over. It was a power play by Dick Cheney etc. Eastern expansion of NATO fills a similar role - a whole bunch of theatrics about 'defense of the Baltics' etc. can be run, deployments and exercises can be conducted, new procurement projects can be announced as part of a pivot 'back to conventional large scale war' (instigating a cold war against China fills the same role) etc. But not only hard neocons play this game - HRC wanted to attack Syria so she too could be a 'big player' and take over from Obama as some 'war hero' who brought down Assad.

Trump's mild opposition to this game is one reason they hate him.

(edit - minor grammar)

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, thats too simplistic. One analysis by a British Journalist that I think is a BIT closer to it, is that Iraq was undertaken, not because Saddam was a threat, but because wasn't a real threat. It was it was thought, ideal to take him down to demonstrate after 911 the US was still capable of destroying any regime that opposed them. And it clearly was. The only bit they didnt put consideration into was what to put in place after it. 12 years planning the war, 2 months of planning the aftermath, It was never going to be particularly promising.

 

The problem about the Baltics is, they were being threatened by Russia BEFORE they joined NATO. That is why they wanted to join. You only have to hear of some of the truly bizarre border incidences to see the Balts motivation. Ironically, Russian belicosity pushed them towards NATO, right a the time the Americans wanted warm bodies to fight in the WOT. One more problem Russia could have saved for itself if it didnt have a complete tosser running It I guess.

 

Its not that I can fault Trump for seeing problems with NATO expansion. There were right there before we did it. The problem is that these debates are some 20 years out of date now. its irrelevant. America can of course do without allies, just as Russia does, the problem as Russia has found is every time it fights, it takes 100 percent of the casualties. Coalition warfare isnt fun, but at least everyone has to take their fair share.

 

Trump isnt hated because he doesnt play the Neocon game. The Neocons are supporting him anyway because he isnt a Democrat. He is hated because he pretends he has all the answers to all the worlds problems, without understanding what the questions are.

 

 

If you think American neocons are bad, look at the ones in Russia that maintain an aircraft carrier that doesn't work and catches fire or tries to sink itself every month, a tank force to invade countries that are too big for Russia to hold, and new nuclear delivery systems to defeat American ABM systems that wont work. Compared to that Ill take John Bolton any day of the week. He might be a lunatic, but at least his concerns have complete validity.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Moscow might see it the same way. The calculation may have been that the Israelis would not be able to refrain from using its subsidized new F-35s against its historical punching bag. Particularly if given a little extra prodding in the form of a well-publicized deployment of missiles there.

Same way Russia sent its S-400, S-300, Pantsirs, Kalibrs, Iskanders, and its most advanced aircraft to Syria, plus unconfirmed claims of T-14 tests?

 

 

Don't forget persistent rumours of S-500 component testing and reports of the new AA laser system used as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary aim of the war on terror was arguably to 'bite off more then can be chewed' so that the most bellicose neoconservatives will have some permanent war to preside over. It was a power play by Dick Cheney etc. Eastern expansion of NATO fills a similar role - a whole bunch of theatrics about 'defense of the Baltics' etc. can be run, deployments and exercises can be conducted, new procurement projects can be announced as part of a pivot 'back to conventional large scale war' (instigating a cold war against China fills the same role) etc. But not only hard neocons play this game - HRC wanted to attack Syria so she too could be a 'big player' and take over from Obama as some 'war hero' who brought down Assad.

 

Trump's mild opposition to this game is one reason they hate him.

 

(edit - minor grammar)

 

 

 

And Bolton attempted to shift Trump back on script and expand the playing field. Although as much as I hate the expansive US involvement across the mid east, I think the way Trump left the Kurds to die was reprehensible...although sadly not without a previous US precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem about the Baltics is, they were being threatened by Russia BEFORE they joined NATO. That is why they wanted to join. You only have to hear of some of the truly bizarre border incidences to see the Balts motivation. Ironically, Russian belicosity pushed them towards NATO, right a the time the Americans wanted warm bodies to fight in the WOT. One more problem Russia could have saved for itself if it didnt have a complete tosser running It I guess.

 

 

 

The Baltics should have never been a US or NATO problem. I can completely understand them wanting to be in NATO; but for everyone else, it was a stupid hill to die on. It unnecessarily provoked Russia in their back yard and gave NATO a hopeless defensive situation. If the front line was Poland, Russia would be a non issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not. Because even Poland shares a border with Russia and Russian interests, Belarus and Ukraine. And Poland as we saw has its own foreign policy, forging close ties with Ukraine for historical reasons. They would have grown agrieved about it sooner or later. In their worldview, Poland is in their sphere of interest, not ours.

 

As said, there was a problem in the Baltic states before they joined NATO. The narrative is that their joining NATO was the cause of the problem, it wasnt. There was an issue with the border even in the Yeltsin years, with continual arguments about the most trivial border adjustments. If anything, when it was announced they would join, Russia calmed down. It even made an approach, oblique in nature, to join NATO (Oh how Putin forgets THAT now!) It was only about after by about 2007 when Putin gave an explosive speech at Munich, that it suddenly became an issue. Even then they didnt actually make any major adjustments to units onthe western frontier with the Baltic states until as late as 2014, when they started rolling back the defensive nature Brigades that had been forming, and reforming Divisions and Army corps because of the supposedly dangerous nature of the Forces in Estonia and Latvia. 2014. Thats something like 11 years after they joined NATO!

 

If I was a judge, i would say that two things played a hand. it was the basing of Missile Defence systems in Eastern Europe, which I always thought was incredibly stupid and said so 20 years ago when the US initially proposed it. And secondly, it became useful to putin politically to make America and NATO a threat, when he convinced himself we were going to depose him (he is still convinced we deposed Yanukovich), and remilitarizations, not least forming the National Guard to help solidify his control on power, could be demonstrated as a legitimate response to NATO aggression. Which is hilarious in that it took 11 years for them to notice.

 

We made mistakes, no doubt about it, but never forget who did most of the running here. And still is for that matter. Putin has forgot nothing and learned nothing in his 20 years in office. He still is making exactly the same mistakes throughout the middle east the USSR was making 40 years ago.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, thats too simplistic. One analysis by a British Journalist that I think is a BIT closer to it, is that Iraq was undertaken, not because Saddam was a threat, but because wasn't a real threat. It was it was thought, ideal to take him down to demonstrate after 911 the US was still capable of destroying any regime that opposed them. And it clearly was. The only bit they didnt put consideration into was what to put in place after it. 12 years planning the war, 2 months of planning the aftermath, It was never going to be particularly promising.

 

The problem about the Baltics is, they were being threatened by Russia BEFORE they joined NATO. That is why they wanted to join. You only have to hear of some of the truly bizarre border incidences to see the Balts motivation. Ironically, Russian belicosity pushed them towards NATO, right a the time the Americans wanted warm bodies to fight in the WOT. One more problem Russia could have saved for itself if it didnt have a complete tosser running It I guess.

 

Its not that I can fault Trump for seeing problems with NATO expansion. There were right there before we did it. The problem is that these debates are some 20 years out of date now. its irrelevant. America can of course do without allies, just as Russia does, the problem as Russia has found is every time it fights, it takes 100 percent of the casualties. Coalition warfare isnt fun, but at least everyone has to take their fair share.

 

Trump isnt hated because he doesnt play the Neocon game. The Neocons are supporting him anyway because he isnt a Democrat. He is hated because he pretends he has all the answers to all the worlds problems, without understanding what the questions are.

 

 

If you think American neocons are bad, look at the ones in Russia that maintain an aircraft carrier that doesn't work and catches fire or tries to sink itself every month, a tank force to invade countries that are too big for Russia to hold, and new nuclear delivery systems to defeat American ABM systems that wont work. Compared to that Ill take John Bolton any day of the week. He might be a lunatic, but at least his concerns have complete validity.

 

2014 is on the phone. Any sign of that Russian economic collapse yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The problem about the Baltics is, they were being threatened by Russia BEFORE they joined NATO. That is why they wanted to join. You only have to hear of some of the truly bizarre border incidences to see the Balts motivation. Ironically, Russian belicosity pushed them towards NATO, right a the time the Americans wanted warm bodies to fight in the WOT. One more problem Russia could have saved for itself if it didnt have a complete tosser running It I guess.

 

 

 

The Baltics should have never been a US or NATO problem. I can completely understand them wanting to be in NATO; but for everyone else, it was a stupid hill to die on. It unnecessarily provoked Russia in their back yard and gave NATO a hopeless defensive situation. If the front line was Poland, Russia would be a non issue.

 

 

Agreed, but the Baltics were/are manageable with NATO tripwire forces and a general condition of calm between NATO and Russia. It was Ukraine where the White House - under Obama - undertook a foolishisly aggressive policy that was too risky with no response if Russia escalated, (when Putin annexed Crimea Obama did nothing because he knew it would go nuclear if he did).

 

But, Biden's son got rich in the process, so all good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...