Russia sends four SU27s to Syria [Archive]

TEEEJ

20th Sep 2015, 16:44

Chevvron wrote

Hardly the latest technology; they're what 30 years old?

They appear to be Su-30SMs? These are new-build with the SM first flight taking place in 2012.

Su-30SM
A specialised version of the thrust-vectoring Su-30MKI and MKM variants for the Russian military, produced by the Irkut Corporation.[27][28] Russia's Defence Ministry was impressed with the MKI's performance envelope and ordered 30 Su-30SMs, a localised version of Su-30MKI, for the Russian Air Force.[29] The Su-30SM is considered as 4+ gen jet fighter.[30][31] The new version has been upgraded based on Russian military requirements for radar, radio communications systems, friend-or-foe identification system, ejection seats, weapons, and other aircraft systems.[32][33] The aircraft is equipped with the Bars-R radar and the wide-angle HUD.[28][33][34][35][36] A contract for 60 of the multirole fighter was signed in March 2012 with delivery by 2016.[37] On 21 September 2012 Su-30SM performed its maiden flight.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

Su-30SM Multirole Fighter Aircraft - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-30sm-multirole-fighter-aircraft/)

Judging by the camouflage they appear to be Russian Air Force. The Russian Navy also operate the SM. Link to gallery of Russian Su-30SM.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=5493

Union Jack

20th Sep 2015, 16:53

Are they any worse than nuclear weapons? - RH200

I suggest that the answer is yes, inasmuch as that they are being actively used against a defenceless civilian population.

Jack

Pontius Navigator

20th Sep 2015, 16:58

Does anyone have a real problem with Putin reinforcing Assad? Their ROE will be less restrictive than the UN and their response no doubt more robust with less regard to collateral damage.

Eclectic

20th Sep 2015, 17:06

The Aviationist agrees: The Aviationist » Satellite image shows four Russian Su-30SM parked in the open air at airfield in Syria (http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/20/su-30sm-exposed-on-the-ground-latakia/#.Vf7kjBwMjbU.twitter)

Su-30SM

Plus two Mi-24 gunship helicopters and two Mi-17 Hip utility choppers.

Royalistflyer

20th Sep 2015, 20:11

I'd have thought a bunch of Su-25s would be more use in that fight.

barnstormer1968

20th Sep 2015, 20:17

Royalistflyer
I suppose it all depends who the SU 30s have been sent to fight or protect Syria from.
If they are there as a message to allied or IAF F15s then they may be the best aircraft for the job.

TEEEJ

20th Sep 2015, 23:22

Su-24 Fencers and IL-78 Midas claimed to have been filmed over Homs, Syria.

6JYEmXJ60Yc&feature=related

air pig

20th Sep 2015, 23:26

PN, Russia's RoE have always been less restrictive.

Do remember the story from Beirut in the 80s when a couple of Russian's from the embassy were snatch by a local militia, it would appear that a member of the leaders family head was sent home, was sent home with the warning we would like our people back unharmed, they were.

Or, Somalian pirates who tried to attack a Russian ship intercepted by a naval spetznaz team, they we cast adrift and as the boat went across horizon it went boom.

Not people to mess around with.

Robert Cooper

21st Sep 2015, 02:42

America, and NATO, goofed when we sought to get rid of Assad and his Alawite elite ruling class. Evil though Assad was, he was the least evil of the possibilities. Few could foresee him lasting this long, but those who knew history knew that Assad had no other choice. Surrender was not an option.

The Alawites are considered pagans by the Sunni. They are not even afforded the dhimmi status given to Christians and Jews. They have been savagely abused over the centuries.

Ibn Taymiyyah, a renowned 13th and 14th century Islamic scholar, issued a fatwa against Alawites, declaring them “greater infidels than Christians, Jews or idolaters,” and calling for a holy war against them. Alawites faced systemic abuse and repression that continued until the end of the Ottoman empire.

The Sunnis cannot stand to be ruled over by people lower than dhimmis. The Alawites know that to surrender means genocide. The Alawites will go down like the Nazis in Berlin in 1945. They have no other choice.

Oddly, the Alawite religion has a mix of Christianity in it, making them friendly with Christians, another victimized group. The Alawites ruthlessly enforced a secularity in a part of the world that revolts against it. As bizarre as it seems, Syria had these Western values. Anyone with half a brain could have foreseen that the way to handle the situation was to offer Assad a hand in exchange for breaking relations with Iran and Hezb’allah. In 2011, that might have worked.

No longer.

The US screwed up in Syria. If Russia is foolish enough to butt in, then let them. Maybe they can do a better job of eliminating ISIS and radical Islam than we are doing.

Bob C

Pontius Navigator

21st Sep 2015, 08:00

AFAIK, the Flankers have an air to ground capability and might be better suited than Frogfoot in Syria.

Martin the Martian

21st Sep 2015, 10:59

But wouldn't that be like the USAF sending F-15Es instead of A-10s?

AreOut

21st Sep 2015, 11:06

"I'd have thought a bunch of Su-25s would be more use in that fight."

I think they'll use these for air support and fly heavy Tupolev bombers from russian bases over Iran&Iraq to do the bombing(it's the route they already use for Antonov transport aircrafts). They might even drop some on ISIS targets in Iraq as well, to appease iraqi government.

Eclectic

21st Sep 2015, 13:15

Apparently the newspaper "Kommersant" confirms that 1,700 Russian soldiers are in the Syrian port city of Tartous.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPbecqEWwAACMdX.jpg

JointShiteFighter

21st Sep 2015, 14:43

Does anyone have a real problem with Putin reinforcing Assad? Their ROE will be less restrictive than the UN and their response no doubt more robust with less regard to collateral damage.

This is the reason why I personally, have a problem with Russia being involved.

Governments have a moral and humanitarian responsibility to minimise damage to property and death of civilians, regardless of whether they're a member of the UN. The refugee crisis is significant already, it will get a whole lot worse when Russia's contribution to the Operation gets in to the full swing. IMHO.

Pontius Navigator

21st Sep 2015, 16:18

JSF, in today's world in the west, you are correct. 60 odd years ago we employed rather more robust ROE in Malaya, Kenya, Aden etc. Russia may be operating as 70-80 years ago against a foe using rules from 700-800 ago.

Turning the other cheek may be Christian, but robust Christianity may be what is needed.

I see the media is now saying Putin-Assad is a least bad option.

TEEEJ

21st Sep 2015, 18:38

Royalistflyer wrote

I'd have thought a bunch of Su-25s would be more use in that fight.

New imagery shows up to 12 Su-25 Frogfoot at Latakia.

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/styles/stratfor_large__s_/public/styles/stratfor_large__s_/public/main/images/Syria-Latakia-Airbase-Satellite-Sept-20-092115-B.jpg

JointShiteFighter

21st Sep 2015, 18:56

PN, perhaps. I won't condone or condemn our approach in decades past, however our current approach is the result of lessons learned, and that I am extremely proud of.

ORAC

21st Sep 2015, 22:00

Independent: Russia has deployed more than 28 military planes to Syria in recent days, claims US (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russia-has-deployed-more-than-28-military-planes-to-syria-in-recent-days-claims-us-10511811.html)

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10511804.ece/alternates/w620/syria1.jpg

Russia has deployed at least 28 combat aircraft to Syria and has started flying unmanned surveillance drones as part of a steady military build-up, US officials have claimed.

Amid mounting concern about the situation inside Syria and the civil war that has been millions of refugees flee the country, officials in Washington told reporters that Russia was increasingly the number of planes and helicopters. These included “Fencer” advanced-attack aircraft and “Frogfoot” jets, used for close air support.

Reuters said unidentified officials had said Russia was also flying drones on surveillance missions – Russia’s first military air operations inside the country. It is believed the drone operations have been flown out of an air base near Latakia, where it has moved other heavy military equipment............

rh200

21st Sep 2015, 23:51

I suggest that the answer is yes, inasmuch as that they are being actively used against a defenceless civilian population.

Thats a moral objection, and you and I may or may not agree with it. But the facts of the matter is, in all out war the civilians are part of the strategic equation whether we like it or not.

Our compliance to such things has been patchy, depending on the circumstances and the risk reward ratio, hence condemning Assad is rather hypocritical of the west.

Governments have a moral and humanitarian responsibility to minimise damage to property and death of civilians, regardless of whether they're a member of the UN.

Governments have no responsibility what so ever for that, its a moral view point depending upon where you stand. Maybe the moral responsibility should be to do what ever it takes to end the situation as quickly as possible.

Whats worse, x amount of people killed brutally in a short amount of time, or 10x over a longer amount of time.

If Russia pulls the gloves off, it may be able to help. The strategy we are doing now is deeply flawed and hamstrung by politics.

Think about whats happening and the time constraint we are under!

The situation has been going on for over an year now, whats the birth rate, whats the indoctrination level in those areas. The fact is, children are being indoctrinated every day, females are probably being forced to spit out children like vending machines.

Even if we kill off the leadership, whats left behind will be a deeply indoctrinated population. Effectively we will have changed the mean level of extremism in the population,

Another words the potential for this to grow exponentially is a real possibility. At the end of the day, we need to be killing ISIS supporters etc in their thousands every day or weekly.

Thelma Viaduct

22nd Sep 2015, 01:46

After the lies of Iraq, the waste of life in Afghanistan and the subsequent disorder across most of the middle east, children getting washed up on beaches, i fail to see how the US&A and ourselves have the brass neck to muster an opinion on what the Russians get up to.

jackx123

22nd Sep 2015, 05:58

@PP: You are 100% correct

As a matter of fact where did Russia ever screw up?

There were a bunch of dictators (north africa and middle east), treating their subjects horribly and subsequently overthrown. However, look what a mess it is now, much worse than it ever was before.

Eclectic

22nd Sep 2015, 08:48

Lovely target.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPfmbjwW8AARH6T.jpg

This has changed the whole balance of power in the Middle East.
Israel and Turkey can no longer strut their stuff with impunity.

And will Cameron still contemplate RAF drone strikes in Syria, never mind sending GR4s in? And how much will Obama pull his horns in?

CIA, MI6 and Mossad must be shipping MANPADs and ATGMs to the rebels right now. This will be Putin's Vietnam/Afghanistan, he is up against extremely experienced and hardened fighters. This is not Georgia or Crimea.

Already the Russian embassy in Damascus has been shelled. Which is just the beginning.

Clockwork Mouse

22nd Sep 2015, 09:08

Democracy is over rated. It doesn't suit every nation. Stability and security are more important to unsophisticated societies. OK, Assad is not a nice guy, but what is the realistic alternative for Syria? Let the Russians have a free hand there, don't interfere and above all don't get sucked into any conflict there.

barnstormer1968

22nd Sep 2015, 10:29

JSF
Re: post #27
Are you really sure our current ROE are as a result of lessons learned?

In WW2 if a Brit patrol saw some German troops they could open fire. This may kill the enemy troops for no loss of Brit life.

Our modern ROE could see that same patrol blown to pieces by an IED as they would have needed for the opposition troops to bring effective fire onto the Brits before fire could be returned.

Is it also progress that modern fighter aircraft with super duper BVR missiles, but no gun have to get WVR to engage opposition aircraft.

IMHO modern Western ROE are there to satisfy the media and politicians far more than to protect our forces.

skydiver69

22nd Sep 2015, 10:42

Assad is fighting ISIS, Nusra Front, Free Syrian Army and small elements of the American backed and trained rebels. Putin is sending forces to support Assad which presumably will attack any forces which oppose him so that could lead to a situation where they bomb a group America backs. If that happens what will America do? Israel has also used the chaos to attack Syria so will they shoot down Russian aircraft if they defend targets against one of their attacks?

TEEEJ

22nd Sep 2015, 12:15

Flightline at Latakia. Su-30s and Su-25s.

http://i.imgur.com/RE6RuhZ.jpg

mantog

22nd Sep 2015, 13:42

Hmm, didn't Nostradamus say something about the Eagle and the Bear joining forces to fight the Anti-Christ :-D

Eclectic

22nd Sep 2015, 15:19

3,700 Russian military in Syria (that we know of).
Now actively engaged (allegedly):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlChgcFnGFU&feature=youtu.be

Bodybags?

Lonewolf_50

22nd Sep 2015, 16:44

3,700 Russian military in Syria (that we know of).
Now actively engaged (allegedly):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlChgcFnGFU&feature=youtu.be
Well, if they blow up some ISIS goons during this "many v many" fight, cool. That is an alleged purpose for them being in country. Who else they blow up is on the Russians, and on Assad. I think our folks can make sure to coordinate and stay clear, de-conflict, and watch what happens with sharp eyes. We don't want us shooting the Russians, or the Russians shooting us.

Does any of this remind folks of the Spanish Civil War? It sort of does and it sort of doesn't for me.

Man, I'd love to know what the phone conversations between Ankara and Moscow sound like lately.

Pontius Navigator

22nd Sep 2015, 17:52

Ecclectic. I would speculate that there is adequate low level communication if not coordination. While much has been made recently of Russian flights in to NATO air space, they have been doing it for decades, and we to them, and they almost always played by the same set of rules.

Wokkafans

22nd Sep 2015, 18:21

Some more arrivals in Syria

12 x Su-24

https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah/status/646384659648118788

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPhrbB9WUAAPyDE.jpg:large

downsizer

22nd Sep 2015, 18:30

Russians obviously don't believe in intra-aircraft Quantity Distances or seem concerned about sympathetic detonations :8:}

Then again, the loss of a few frames wouldn't cripple them :\

JointShiteFighter

23rd Sep 2015, 03:46

RH200, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Personally, I believe governments have a moral duty to do their best to avoid killing the innocent. Killing innocent people achieves nothing other than making more enemies.

Barnstormer, as far as I'm aware, ROE were never intended to protect the military. They were intended to protect civilians. I won't deny that they can get a bit ridiculous - I think Afghanistan was proof of that.

dazdaz1

23rd Sep 2015, 14:08

Joint..."I believe governments have a moral duty to do their best to avoid killing the innocent. Killing innocent people achieves nothing other than making more enemies."

The French people in WWII accepted/anticipated casualties from our bombing.

Eclectic

23rd Sep 2015, 14:23

If anyone wants to know what is happening inside Syria the website of The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a good source.

Syrian Observatory For Human Rights | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (http://www.syriahr.com/en/)

And here is an interesting map:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPlvKLhW8AEUg2m.jpg

AreOut

23rd Sep 2015, 15:43

The game is on.

https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/646701594638094336

SkyHawk-N

23rd Sep 2015, 15:59

This report (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/chinese-military-personnel-expected-to-arrive-in-syria/) says that the Chinese are on their way to Syria, including a 'naval vessel' which has just passed through Suez, and 'aerial assets' which are on their way. May be hearsay or trolling but would be a very interesting development if true.

barnstormer1968

23rd Sep 2015, 16:41

JSF

Have you read or been read many rules of engagement?

Lonewolf_50

23rd Sep 2015, 17:00

Barnstormer, as far as I'm aware, ROE were never intended to protect the military. You would be wrong about that. Some RoE is to prevent blue on blue, some is for the other considerations you mention.

West Coast

23rd Sep 2015, 17:17

downsizer

23rd Sep 2015, 18:01

If anyone wants to know what is happening inside Syria the website of The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a good source.

Biased towards the various rebel factions and vociferously anti regime. Not saying that's a bad thing per se, but it isn't a neutral source.

Lonewolf_50

23rd Sep 2015, 18:24

fait accompli, due to the US's half hearted attempts to squash ISIL, its now an opportunity for all comers who want to increase their influence in the area. Obama has sunk any potential to extend influence in the area.

As far as ROE, JSF's comments do have a degree of truth in them. ROE in Somalia in the 90s put those of us at a tactical disadvantage with the locals. JSF's point was an incorrect statement of how RoE work. As to that which pertains to "due care" for non combatants, I found that the IRL implementation of RoE far too often put a lot of obstacles in the way of our people getting their mission accomplished with the risk remaining at a sane level. Further comments censored, due to my strong emotions on the topic, and in a few cases being covered by an NDA.

What your saw in Somalia hasn't gotten much better, from what I saw, and in some cases it may have gotten worse.

West Coast

23rd Sep 2015, 19:34

Lonewolf_50

23rd Sep 2015, 20:40

In Somalia we were read ROE based in a humanitarian mission in hazardous zone. The Clinton administration and the UN morphed that into a primarily combatant role without changing the ROE. This evidenced at all levels of the planning, execution and logistics. Those ROE limitations seem to me to match up with what JSF said. Within the narrow scope of my experiences, he nailed it. My most recent experiences were with something a bit beyond a humanitarian mission.

I am sad to repeat that, as I posted, the problem with that piece of the RoE remains an obstacle to operations at a lot of levels. Since war is the child of politics, I don't think that piece of it will change any time soon. :uhoh:

KenV

24th Sep 2015, 17:09

ROE were never intended to protect the military. They were intended to protect civilians. I won't deny that they can get a bit ridiculous - I think Afghanistan was proof of that. Never? Then apparently Vietnam never happened. The RoE over Vietnam that required visual identification of an aircraft before one could shoot at it totally negated the advantage in BVR weapons USAF and USN enjoyed at the time, and likely resulted in many unnecessary losses. Not to mention resulting in programs like Top Gun to teach dog fight skills to pilots not trained for it. And that visual ID requirement was not to protect civilian airliners.

Ground forces ROE are (generally) a different matter.

barnstormer1968

24th Sep 2015, 18:48

Lonewolf
ROE are both interesting and sometimes beyond ridiculous in some cases IMHO.
Perhaps your mention of an NDA suggests you have seen some odd ones too.

From my own experience civilians didn't even always get a mention, let alone be protected.
Of course, some historically famous events had ROE that had civilians as the intended target, either directly or indirectly which is why I bit to JSFs' post. Events like the WW2 bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki spring to mind as direct targeting while the dambusters raid killed very many civilians of all ages as an indirect consequence.

PersonFromPorlock

24th Sep 2015, 19:33

I see the media is now saying Putin-Assad is a least bad option. It may be worth remembering that Communist Vietnam took out the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia when the West decided to do nothing. Sometimes the bad guys are better than the worse guys.

AreOut

24th Sep 2015, 20:33

well, the life in general is about going with lesser evil...

Lonewolf_50

24th Sep 2015, 20:57

@Barnstormer: in a nutshell, yes.

@PersonFromPorlock: I like the way you put that. Too bad the desire to draw red lines prevented our political leadership from making that very assessment. Oh well, pols make mistakes. I wonder if the "success" with the Mad Colonel from Lybia influenced the mistakes in Syria, in terms of assuming a cookie cutter ... my money is betting the over on that one.

Eclectic

25th Sep 2015, 06:12

Lots of new Latakia images:
Cavok Brasil ? Aviação e Fotografia - SÍRIA: Imagens atualizadas sobre a presença militar russa em Latakia (http://www.cavok.com.br/blog/siria-imagens-atualizadas-sobre-a-presenca-militar-russa-em-latakia/)

Plenty of analysis opportunities in that lot.

Cows getting bigger

25th Sep 2015, 06:31

Good luck to them. We've spent a couple of decades meddling in the region and have contributed towards the mess; time for someone else to have a go. One presumes we are content with handing-out loaves of bread at the various (non) Schengen borders whilst the European Federal dream continues it's hand-wringing in Brussels

As previously stated, democracy is over rated.

t43562

25th Sep 2015, 07:24

As previously stated, democracy is over rated.I think that's easily said when living comfortably in one.

SkyHawk-N

26th Sep 2015, 16:59

There are reports of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 docked at Tartus, Syria, with a squadron of Shenyang J-15 Flying Sharks on their way to operate from Latakia and from the carrier deck. They also have Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters and Z-18J airborne early warning helicopters.

See here (http://www.debka.com/article/24909/A-Chinese-aircraft-carrier-docks-at-Tartus-to-support-Russian-Iranian-military-buildup) for more information.

downsizer

27th Sep 2015, 14:58

You do know that DEBKA is a conspiracy theory website at best?

Rosevidney1

27th Sep 2015, 15:45

My anti virus system didn't like the site and immediately flagged up a warning.

AnglianAV8R

27th Sep 2015, 20:05

There?s no Chinese aircraft carrier in Syria - Liberty Unyielding (http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/09/27/theres-no-chinese-aircraft-carrier-in-syria/)

TEEEJ

28th Sep 2015, 12:44

Russia has no plans for now to deploy combat troops in Syria, President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday, addressing U.S. concerns about a Russian military build-up.

In an interview with U.S. television networks recorded ahead of a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin said the aim of Russia's military presence in Syria was to support the government of President Bashar al-Assad against terrorist groups.

"Russia will not take part in any field operations on the territory of Syria or in other states; at least, we do not plan it for now," he said in a transcript of the interview with U.S. television networks CBS and PBS released by the Kremlin.

Putin says Russia has no plans to deploy combat troops in Syria | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/uk-mideast-crisis-putin-usa-idUKKCN0RR14R20150927)

Heathrow Harry

28th Sep 2015, 16:11

Some people never learn............

They'll be heroes to the Syrians for 3 months, a necessary pain for another 6, a real pain in 2 years and the Enemy in 3 years...........

TEEEJ

28th Sep 2015, 22:14

A number of Su-34 Fullback have been noted landing at Latakia.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/40/9814836.6e/0_13f542_7d3faff9_XL.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

TEEEJ

29th Sep 2015, 16:13

Putin has stated

Russia would conduct air strikes only if they were approved by the United Nations, he said, while also ruling out Russian troops taking part in a ground operation in Syria.

Syria conflict: Russia considers joining anti-IS air strikes - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34387433)

AreOut

29th Sep 2015, 18:49

I doubt they have brought so many planes and logistics just to wait for UN approval.

Eclectic

30th Sep 2015, 11:43

Russians now killing Syrians:
At Least 27 Killed in Airstrikes in Western Syria - Middle East - Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.678205)

Their strikes were against non ISIS targets.

air pig

30th Sep 2015, 11:53

CNN via Andrew Neil on the BBC Daily Politics now saying Russians are or have attacked Homs.

a1bill

30th Sep 2015, 11:56

It's nice that the west and russia are friends again with common goals.

Eclectic

30th Sep 2015, 13:30

The Russians flew an IL-20M over Homs yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qwNY9GFXp8
Gathering intelligence for today's air strike.

There are several different "sides" in Syria.

Government + Iranians + Hezbollah
Islamic State
Kurds
Al Nusra
FSA and other rebels supported by the West.

The Turks have struck at least 3 of these.
West alliance supposedly only after IS.
Who are the Russians after?

This is a good source for updates on events: https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins

a1bill

30th Sep 2015, 13:34

Russia is after no one, they are just there to protect their interests. it's never about right and wrong :eek:

air pig

30th Sep 2015, 16:08

a1bill,

Russia is after no one, they are just there to protect their interests. it's never about right and wrong

What the Russians are after is an Eastern Mediterranean port, as Libya has fallen apart and transiting the Bospherous is covered by treaty obligations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

smujsmith

30th Sep 2015, 18:54

So, could those in the know explain if the SU34 is a fighter or bomber. I've seen it described as both across the press today. What capability does it bring to the deployed force ? Anyone want to help a curious bystander ?

Smudge

deptrai

30th Sep 2015, 18:57

Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback; Russia's New Heavy Strike Fighter (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html#mozTocId197830)

AreOut

30th Sep 2015, 18:58

"Russia is after no one, they are just there to protect their interests. it's never about right and wrong"

well just like anybody else

Phil_R

30th Sep 2015, 21:22

Call me an unrepentant, untrained civilian, but they didn't actually seem to come as close to what they were aiming at as NATO ordinarily do.

Russian cockpit video 'shows Syria air strikes' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34406036)

Or may be NATO is only releasing the good ones.

smujsmith

30th Sep 2015, 22:11

deptrai,

Thanks, from a better informed curious bystander. Nice bit of kit by the looks of it.

Smudge :ok:

Stitchbitch

1st Oct 2015, 06:08

Phil_r, depends on wether they were dumb bombing or using smart weapons. The pod view doesn't necessarily mean they were using smarts. Imho of course, there will be better qualified answers soon.

Wensleydale

1st Oct 2015, 07:12

One of the videos shown on BBC this morning appeared to show the use of a cluster weapon (several small bursts over quite a large area)..... are they back on the menu these days?

Cazalet33

1st Oct 2015, 07:30

they didn't actually seem to come as close to what they were aiming at

Looks like an airburst. No need to 'hit' the target with the bomb itself if you set it for an airburst. The 'bad' guys fall down over a much larger radius than with a contact or delay detonation.

Woff1965

1st Oct 2015, 09:38

The US, Russian and China did not sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Here is a list of those countries that have

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions#States_Parties

Cazalet33

1st Oct 2015, 09:57

Already the US and UK are bitching that Russian anti-terrorist strikes in Syria are attacking the 'wrong' terrorists.

Sounds a bit like British Rail and "the wrong type of snow".

ORAC

1st Oct 2015, 10:01

But the ones they are striking are those backed, funded, and equipped by Turkey, Saudi and other Sunni Gulf states.

This could ugly, fast.

Cazalet33

1st Oct 2015, 10:21

At least one or two of the terrorist outfits there is funded and trained and supplied by the godalmighty US of A, so yes, there may be trouble ahead (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnfKmNRfLYU).

relight9

1st Oct 2015, 10:29

'One of the videos shown on BBC this morning appeared to show the use of a cluster weapon (several small bursts over quite a large area)..... are they back on the menu these days?'

I think the 'small bursts' were shrapnel, the actual bomb burst is just off the bottom of the screen.

Eclectic

1st Oct 2015, 12:04

Russia apparently using OFAB-250 fragmentation bombs:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQOazC_VAAEJvJV.png

There is no evidence of them going after any ISIS targets.
They are bombing the USA/Saudi/Turkish backed anti Assad rebels who are the ones actually fighting him.

Using non precision bombs in civilian areas will only create more refugees.

glad rag

1st Oct 2015, 12:16

The OFAB 250-270 (OФAБ 250- 270) is a thick cased High Explosive Fragmentation bomb designed to produce a large quantity of lethal fragments effective at long distance and blast overpressure for destructive effect at shorter distances.

The bomb casing is internally grooved to assist break up into optimum sized fragments and is 25mm thick at the central parallel section of the bomb.

The rounded nose section is considerably thicker to add strength.

The tail cone, which is explosive filled, is sheet steel no more than 4 mm thick.

The bomb has two fuze wells, one in the nose and one in the tail into which are normally fitted impact and inertia/impact fuzes (respectively).

There are eight fins welded onto the tail section into which are fitted two strengthening rings, one inner, and one outer.

The nose section has a hollow steel “Kopf “anti-ricochet ring welded on (this ring often breaks off on impact with the ground).

The bomb has two centrally located suspension lugs, and on the opposite side a single suspension lug and may be found fitted with either a nose or a tail fuze or occasionally with both.

The charge /weight ratio of the bomb is approximately 35/65.

relight9

1st Oct 2015, 14:22

That's going to ruin your day.....

Eclectic

1st Oct 2015, 15:11

Lonewolf_50

1st Oct 2015, 16:03

More than 50 Russian aircraft involved now:
TASS: Military & Defense - Russia destroys IS headquarters in Al-Latamna suburb with ground bomb (http://tass.ru/en/defense/825246)
That ramped up quickly.

Putin has ordered the conscription of 147,000 troops from October 1 according to the Kremlin press service. :confused: Uh, is he thinking of a "boots on the ground" approach in Syria? Need to mull that over, I don't see how an injection of Russian troops makes this mess any better, and particularly on the home political front for him.

*scratches head*

Need to give this the old 48 hour waiting period.

Robert Cooper

1st Oct 2015, 16:27

It's not only Russia putting "boots on the ground." According to the news here Iran is already sending ground forces in and Lebanese Hezbollah forces will be joining them shortly.

This could get very interesting very fast. Be interesting to see how Obama handles this one.

Bob C

Eclectic

1st Oct 2015, 16:47

Israeli SIGINT activity:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQPt4fEUYAAr3k7.jpg

Are they going to join in?

A_Van

1st Oct 2015, 17:06

2 Eclectic

You wrote: "There is no evidence of them going after any ISIS targets.
They are bombing the USA/Saudi/Turkish backed anti Assad rebels who are the ones actually fighting him.
Using non precision bombs in civilian areas will only create more refugees. "

Who told you that? CNN? BBC? Were they flying wing-to-wing with Su-24M?
BTW, looks like the propaganda you referred to was pushed through the Net before the planes took off.

But in general, IMHO, Russian AF could hardly do more than the US one did, i.e. next to nothing. Chasing jihhadists dispersed in the desert at night time by warplanes proved to be inefficient since Afganistan campaigns.

Pontius Navigator

1st Oct 2015, 17:19

AV, but boots on the ground, something NATO is now shy of doing, can bring better results.

Eclectic

1st Oct 2015, 17:29

AV
There are many non BBC sources.
eg
Homs Media Centre: https://www.facebook.com/Homs.Media.Center
Syrian Human Rights Observatory: Syrian Observatory For Human Rights | Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (http://www.syriahr.com/en/)

And on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke
https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah
https://twitter.com/markito0171
https://twitter.com/NorthernStork

And many more!

A_Van

1st Oct 2015, 17:43

2 Pontius Navigator

Yes, Sir - you are perfectly right. Though being in AF for quite some time, I agree that the planes only can never win a war. They can and must be of help, but the ultimate word should be said by the soldiers on the ground.

But, here in Russia all the "zombi-boxes" (TV, radio, web propaganda) shout that the Russian ground troops would never be involved in the offensive ops. Even the local "guy No. 1" said that in the interview. Only some marines are securing the airbases.
As far as I understand, the Russian forces would provide air support to the Syrian army, and the latter will be facing bullets.
This looks reasonable for me so far, because the public opinion here would be very much against that (human losses) and the ruling group would loose the fragile public support they currently have.

TEEEJ

1st Oct 2015, 17:58

A_Van wrote

Who told you that? CNN? BBC? Were they flying wing-to-wing with Su-24M? BTW, looks like the propaganda you referred to was pushed through the Net before the planes took off.

The Russians have come clean and have admitted to bombing non-IS targets.

The Kremlin has admitted that air strikes in Syria are hitting a list of militant organisations opposed to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad – not only Islamic State (Isis) – bolstering Western fears that Vladimir Putin's real purpose in Syria is to help Assad reclaim lost territory.

Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the military operation in Syria was wider than initially framed. "These organisations [on the target list] are well-known and the targets are chosen in co-ordination with the armed forces of Syria."

Russia in Syria: Kremlin admits air strikes are bombing anti-Assad rebel groups and not just Isis (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-syria-kremlin-admits-air-strikes-are-bombing-anti-assad-rebel-groups-not-just-isis-1522005)

A_Van

1st Oct 2015, 18:29

I was questionning casualties among the civilians.
Attacking armed people is completely different. Some support that local Syrian "fuehrer", some - so-called rebels, it's one's choice. As for me, they all are not good guys. Many examples that troops of both side easily join IS taking the arms earlier provided to them by US or Russia.

Showing some TV footage taken "who knows when and where" is now a wide-spread trick allowing for blaming anybody on whatever subjects.
The same for all those twitter and facebook posts - no responsibility for saying any nonsense stimulates generating more and more garbage.

MPN11

1st Oct 2015, 18:55

There was a graphic on Fox at around 1900 UK time that showed where the bombing was supposed to have taken place. Not in ISIS areas, but where anti-Assad rebels are located.

OK, I know it's Fox, but all info should be considered.

Robert Cooper

1st Oct 2015, 19:43

At this time it seems that the Russian and Iranian ground troops are only interested in regaining ground that Assad lost to the rebels.

That may change.

Bob C

Pontius Navigator

2nd Oct 2015, 08:37

"Enemy to the front, 5 rounds . . . "

"If it looks like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist . . . " it's not a Duck.

Unpalatable as it may be to US eyes, ie contrary to their thinking, it makes sound military sense to clear your front rather than allowing various flavours of 'friendly' rebels to prosper in your rear area.

The Russians had plenty of experience of manoeuvre warfare in WW 2, the Vietnamese exploited the flanking manoeuvre and the Israelis exploited the turning manoeuvre in the Yom Kippur. What they appear to be doing now is attempting to secure their flanks.

NutLoose

2nd Oct 2015, 08:54

Vietnam part deux...

Pontius Navigator

2nd Oct 2015, 09:11

Or Chechenya? Or Afg part X or Middle East part X.

Is there a lesson in history I wonder?

ORAC

2nd Oct 2015, 15:27

I agree with the below for the most part; my misgivings are in escalation if Turkey, Saudi et al reinforce their allies - and the possible repercussions in Saudi itself. Their present regime is tottering due to their involvement in Yemen becoming a morass - and calls from influential sources for regime change (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/28/saudi-royal-calls-regime-change-letters-leadership-king-salman). They could be forced to react to show their determination.

Streetwise Professor: Let Putin Find Out the Hard Way (http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9625)

ORAC

4th Oct 2015, 07:16

As I said above.....

Gulf states plan military response as Putin raises the stakes in Syria | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/04/russia-bombing-syria-affects-ousting-of-assad)

Rick777

5th Oct 2015, 02:34

Speaking as an American, we have a lot of people who don't like us killing each other. Why should Obama do much?

West Coast

5th Oct 2015, 04:59

Gulf states vs Putin.

That's not much of a fight card. All 3 rounds will go to Russia.

Maybe it's time to start digging the bunker in the backyard.

Ddraig Goch

5th Oct 2015, 09:00

Hi, over the weekend see:
Turkish jets intercept Russian fighter plane violating its air space, foreign ministry says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-05/turkey-says-russian-warplane-violated-its-air-space/6829036)

Turkey has intercepted a Russian warplane that violated its air space near the Syrian border and forced it to turn back, Turkey's foreign ministry said.

Another potential flash point?

Reinhardt

5th Oct 2015, 09:03

First a very nice report of Russian TV, showing their beautiful deployment of efficient assets. Reminds me of PSAB in the 90's :

Inside a Russian airbase in Syria: RT?s exclusive close-up (PHOTOS, VIDEO) ? RT News (http://www.rt.com/news/317448-russian-airbase-syria-photos/)

Now regarding "deconfliction" over Syrian airspace, which the US "control" (according to the wording of our medias) : a Russian Air Force colonel in Bagdad does communicate one hour before their strikes, where and how the Russian jets are going to fly. So the CCOA or whatever in Qatar is readjusting the ATO in accordance...

That's for deconfliction ! Absolutely brilliant !

And I'm sure those people don't bother with female legal advisers (LEGAD) close to their colonels when it's time to drop the bombs...
For the unexperienced, a LEGAD is something (often with a few stripes and uniform, sometimes not) who has never been in combat, has never been shot at, is not qualified in the operation of any weapon system, has never brought his men to action... but nevertheless wil tell the previously mentioned AF colonel if it's appropriate to bomb or not. That's what improved communication systems (C3I) allow for !

Good luck to the Russians. It's good to have them doing the job.

Давай ! ура ! ура ! ура ! Победы

Eclectic

5th Oct 2015, 09:15

" Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU – 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15’s fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast."

Air Duel between the Sukhoi Su - 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15 - Intifada Palestine (http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2015/10/air-duel-between-the-sukhoi-su-30-russian-sm-and-israeli-f-15/)

Fiction? Or another interesting facet of this complex situation?

Cazalet33

5th Oct 2015, 09:36

And I'm sure those people don't bother with female legal advisers (LEGAD) close to their colonels when it's time to open fire...

What LEGAD have to say about bombing the MSF hospital in Kunduz?

ProSentia

5th Oct 2015, 09:41

"For the unexperienced, a LEGAD... ...who has never been in combat, has never been shot at, is not qualified in the operation of any weapon system, has never brought his men to action... but nevetheless wil tell the previously mentioned AF colonel if it's appropriate to bomb or not"

Okay, I'll bite. If I were to be diagnosed with cancer, I'd be wanting the support of the best oncologist I could find. In the early stages, I would not be prioritising speaking to other cancer patients (other than to find a good oncologist).

The whole point of a LEGAD is to provide the counter-point view if needed, to act as Devil's advocate as it were. If the LEGAD had done all the things you mention above then they would probably no differnt in mindset to the AF Colonel and therefore be of little use.

Wokkafans

5th Oct 2015, 10:02

Top trolling from the Ruskies :D

https://twitter.com/RusEmbassyUAE/status/650898242318680064

deptrai

5th Oct 2015, 10:06

Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/turkey-says-russian-warplane-violated-airspace)

too many countries operating in the same area without coordination, bound to create more tension?

Eclectic

5th Oct 2015, 10:57

OOPS!
https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/650987196116267008
https://twitter.com/Paradoxy13/status/650984061415104512

Alleged video of ejected pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=lgxTQZfkjKw

AreOut

5th Oct 2015, 12:13

those poor syrian 21s are already well over the frame lifecycle...no wonder they fall every now and then even without getting shot

TEEEJ

5th Oct 2015, 16:47

Some of the MiG-21 images being used in the media are from a 2013 shoot down video.

Rebels claim they shot down a Russian (or Syrian) aircraft in Ghouta | Al Bawaba (http://www.albawaba.com/loop/syrian-rebels-claim-they-shot-down-russian-or-syrian-aircraft-ghouta-751130)

ExRAFRadar

5th Oct 2015, 17:03

Here we go

Syria conflict: Nato warns Russia on air strikes - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34448942)

Lonewolf_50

5th Oct 2015, 17:15

Whatever American official claimed that the Russian incursion into Turkish airspace was deliberate ... I find that claim extraordinary. It is far more likely to have been a modest nav error. The Turks appear to have responded in a professional and restrained fashion. (Well played, Turkish Air Force!)

I recall a few "close to the line" incidents along the Iran Iraq border between our jets and the Iranian folks watching the airspace. Each of them was one of those small goofs (and in both cases tied to a particular holding pattern a tanker was maintaining not far from the airspace limits) and handled via radio comms ... with one ending up in a fairly vociferous protest that ended up in our defense attaché's office.

I also recall some Pakistani F-16's scrambling against our aircraft near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, even though we were allegedly working together and they were given a copy of our ATO so that they'd know when to expect us. (The DAO in Pakistan had to deal with those :mad:'s on a daily basis, our HQ only sometimes).\

My point is: the Turks and Russians have lots of ways to avoid something like this getting worse, and have lots of ways of managing/handling it.

This won't lead to much of anything beyond a few nasty notes back and forth between military staffs and embassies.

ORAC

5th Oct 2015, 18:11

Maybe, but lest we forget, the Syrians did shoot down a Turkish F-4 a few months back, and the Turks have shot down a couple of Syrians since. And the Turks are supporting the rebels the Russians are bombing.

I can recall discussing, (many, many, years ago, when the Shah was still in power and after a USAF C-130 was reputedly meakoned across the border and shot down) on the relationship between the Iranians and the Russians; did they have any border problems I asked?

"None whatsoever" the Iranian colonel replied; "if we cross the border they shoot us down; and if they cross the border we shoot them down."

TEEEJ

5th Oct 2015, 18:34

Looks like the Syrians are playing a dangerous game with their own jets near the Turkish border? Reports of a MiG-29 locking radar onto Turkish F-16s. The Russian Air Force is not known to have deployed MiG-29s to Syria.

Turkey’s military also said that on Sunday an MIG-29 jet harassed two Turkish F-16s for 5min 40sec by locking its radar on to them. The military said the incident occurred while 10 F-16s were patrolling the Turkish-Syrian border, adding that it did it not know to which country the MIG-29 belonged.

Turkey says Russian warplane violated its airspace | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/05/turkey-says-russian-warplane-violated-airspace)

Reinhardt

6th Oct 2015, 09:27

Prosentia :
" The whole point of a LEGAD is to provide the counter-point view if needed, to act as Devil's advocate as it were "

And WHY would we need a Devil's advocate ? are we in a Court of Justice, or in a battlefield ?

Too many american movies featuring lawyers and courts, I'm afraid

Just This Once...

6th Oct 2015, 09:44

It's a battlefield so the Law of Armed Conflict is paramount.

Anything else is just murder.

:ok:

Eclectic

6th Oct 2015, 10:15

Radar.
Green = USA
Yellow = Russia
http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/10/05/b28669b5-b25e-4da3-8c10-0d7bc092a0e9/thumbnail/620x350/7471a5cfc46f4a52e4e89f1fac45e492/martin-headline-materialframe2139.jpg

Source: Russians make closest contact to date with U.S. war planes over Syria - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-aircraft-makes-close-contact-with-u-s-war-planes-over-syria/)

ORAC

6th Oct 2015, 10:42

Have to admit their Met men are prettier than the ones I used to meet...

l18nccY5XyM

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2015, 10:53

Glad Rag, would you be so kind as to tell us about the bomb shown in the Telegraph today. Vanes on the nose, no visible fusing, a pipe mounted externally, looks most odd.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2015, 10:55

ORAC, never at Coningsby then?

Wokkafans

6th Oct 2015, 10:58

Have to admit their Met men are prettier than the ones I used to meet...

l18nccY5XyM

More on this Weather conditions 'excellent' for bombing Syria, says Russian TV presenter | Europe | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-weather-presenter-says-syrian-airstrikes-have-been-very-well-chosen-because-of-good-october-a6680251.html)

Eclectic

6th Oct 2015, 11:09

Russian cluster bomb use in Syria: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/06/mounting-evidence-of-russian-cluster-bomb-use-in-syria/

glad rag

6th Oct 2015, 14:04

Sorry PN my EOD ID booklet is back at HQ......many miles away..

Interesting find..seems the ruskies don't bother making them go bang if they don't fuse then :mad:

https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/12115694_1051204011596839_7428628325602253831_n.jpg

Yank "original" version..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

"If a Skeet fails to find a target, it self-destructs 50 feet (15 m) above the ground; if this fails, a back-up timer disables the Skeet. These features are intended to avoid later civilian casualties from unexploded munitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_munitions), and result in an unexploded-ordnance rate of less than 1%."

bg9uoI8RQKc

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2015, 14:11

GR, thanks, had hoped you were at EODIC.

glad rag

6th Oct 2015, 14:32

GR, thanks, had hoped you were at EODIC.

No PN just a retired amateur nerd now ;)

You got a link for that picture?

A_Van

6th Oct 2015, 17:02

2 Eclectic:

1. Definition of the cluster munition (that is banned by some countries):
The definition of a cluster munition under Article 2 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions is “a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions.”
Source: http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/en-gb/cluster-bombs/what-is-a-cluster-bomb.aspx (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/en-gb/cluster-bombs/what-is-a-cluster-bomb.aspx)

2. Russian RBK-500-SPBE mentioned here weighs 500 kg and has 15 self-guided sub-munitions, please, see
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/ab/rbk500.html (http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/ab/rbk500.html) (these numbers - 500 and 15 - are in the first line of the text in cyrillic)
Thus, this bomb does not fall into the category of the banned metal (500/15 = 33.33 kg). BTW, this was mentioned by someone in the first comment after the article you referred to (https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/06/mounting-evidence-of-russian-cluster-bomb-use-in-syria/ (https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/06/mounting-evidence-of-russian-cluster-bomb-use-in-syria/) )

3. But even if it fell (into the cluster category), this would simply mean, IMHO, inadequacy of the above definition. Obviously, using self-guided submunitions aimed exclusively at armored vehicles, would bring no more harm to infantry (or jihadists on the mules in this case) than a couple of machine-guns in "skilled hands" of a tank or IFV crew.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2015, 17:05

GR, no link but it was in today's Telegraph however I did find this link

The Smart Weapons Russia is Using in Syria (http://russia-insider.com/en/military/smart-weapons-russia-using-syria/ri10231)

It is not as clear as the Telegraph but appears to be the same.

Wokkafans

6th Oct 2015, 17:36

Any ideas on what this Russian ordinance is?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQpj2lcUkAAtHF-.jpg

Eclectic

6th Oct 2015, 17:51

Russian propaganda repeatedly emphasises their use of smart weapons.

All the videos and photographs coming out of Syria show the exact opposite.

Also Russian videos have been geolocated and they are USUALLY not where Russia says that they are.
https://bellingcat.checkdesk.org/en/story/736

downsizer

6th Oct 2015, 18:39

Russian propaganda repeatedly emphasises their use of smart weapons.

All the videos and photographs coming out of Syria show the exact opposite.

Russians have been dropping KAB500 Glonass guided bombs and KH25 missiles as well as dumb munitions. Plenty of photos and videos of such ordnance on Russian jets in theatre on the web if you do your research.

You need some better sources mate.

MPN11

6th Oct 2015, 19:04

Comment on Fox News an hour ago ... 17 of 19 RU strikes have been on anti-Assad rebels, and only 2 on ISIL.

Make of that what you will.

Pontius Navigator

6th Oct 2015, 19:19

And representatives of the 41 rebel factions said the Russian actions would unite them . . .

Now supposing Assad were deposed, all would be sweetness and light, all Assad supporters would be able to relax under the 41 factions that would live happily ever after, just like in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc

Ivan Rogov

6th Oct 2015, 20:35

Wokka, looking at the fins it is probably tube launched, therefore ground based. Probably 9M55 or 9M528 rockets from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30_Smerch MLRSki

Wokkafans

6th Oct 2015, 20:58

Cheers Ivan :ok:

Eclectic

7th Oct 2015, 13:51

Russia says it has launched rocket strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria from its warships in the Caspian Sea - about 1,500km (930 miles) away.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said four warships fired 26 sea-based cruise missiles on 11 targets, destroying them.

http://thumbsnap.com/s/RfnlyZDu.jpg

TEEEJ

7th Oct 2015, 14:30

iMasnaAf_H4&feature=related

HaveQuick2

7th Oct 2015, 14:53

At least the TV weather forecast looks good for them......

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/2015/10/05/Russian-TV-forecasts-good-weather-for-bombing-in-Syria.html

http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2015/10/05/1725d4d5-a23e-4506-9f32-fbcb0593b335/1725d4d5-a23e-4506-9f32-fbcb0593b335_16x9_788x442.jpg

Eclectic

7th Oct 2015, 15:03

Wokkafans

7th Oct 2015, 15:35

The last few seconds of this are interesting :eek:

yEpAs7fRb0k

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 16:17

The Assad regime has lost a lot of armour today to ATGMs.

11 videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGY9UzCSpWs&list=PLBSC655GTOfr9PaFICyJU8LbD-Ea2jVHZ
Allegedly 17 tanks blown up trying to attach Hama.
What were they trying attach to Hama to? Terra Firma? Will give this another day to see how things are going, but my below linked Reuters article has this:"Other footage from Hama showed rebels from the Free Syrian Army firing anti-tank missiles and hitting two army tanks.

@TEEJ: Tomahawkski? Was that a recent Russian PR release? (Kalibr/Sizzler is the estimate ...)

Some interesting points raised in this Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strikes-idUSKCN0S10BI20151007), not sure how close to the mark they are.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strikes-idUSKCN0S10BI20151007
The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia took part in the fighting, a regional
source said..
The missiles would have passed over Iran and Iraq to reach their targets,
covering what Shoigu described as a distance of almost 1,500 km (900 miles), the
latest display of Russian military power at a time when relations with the West
are at a post-Cold War low over Ukraine.
As we've not heard much noise from Iran and Iraq about this, perhaps they don't mind this airspace violation, or agreed with the Russians ahead of time? I suspect the latter.
But in Iraq, the head of parliament's defense and security committee said Baghdad may request Russian air strikes against Islamic State on its soil soon and wants Moscow to have a bigger role than Washington in fighting the group.
This sounds like "time to take the kid gloves off" as their frame of mind.
Iraq's government and powerful Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias question the United States' resolve in fighting Islamic State militants, who control a third of the country, saying U.S.-led coalition air strikes are ineffective.
“We might be forced to ask Russia to launch air strikes in Iraq soon ... and that depends on their success in Syria," Hakim al-Zamili told Reuters.
This looks like a shot across the bow for President Obama and his current policy in re Iraq.

The response may take a few days, but it will be interesting to see what rhetoric erupts out of Washington, having been called out.

air pig

7th Oct 2015, 16:43

Lonewolf 50:

Are the Russians not embedded in Iran and within their CAOC system??

Will Washington do anything except spout hot air and add more 'red lines'?

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 17:20

Lonewolf 50:

Are the Russians not embedded in Iran and within their CAOC system?? Don't know. The Iranians have some Russian kit for surface to air, so I'd guess they have plenty of Mil to Mil contacts. Whether or not they embed in the Iranian version of a CAOC or a JOC ... could be.
Will Washington do anything except spout hot air and add more 'red lines'? They'll do the former for sure, may have learned the lesson on red lines though ... we'll see.

air pig

7th Oct 2015, 17:27

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 17:30

Lonewolf 50:

Is not Obama not working on his legacy and after the disaster in Benghazi is he willing to have his fingers burnt again. Where is Hilary Clinton on this as she attempts to become the next president and her reported acts and omissions over the same incident.
Hillary isn't in any office at the moment, so she'll be cagey with any response and think it out well before uttering anything. I don't like her, but she's not quite stupid.

As to President Obama ... I sometimes wonder at the thought process, and rhetoric crafting process, he and his inner circle use. Some of what comes out of his lips makes me scratch my head.

Eclectic

7th Oct 2015, 17:56

Putin is using cruise missiles against dispersed, difficult to identify, low value targets in asymmetrical warfare.
For ground troops he is relying on the Syrian army with Hezbollah support, who have been soundly beaten by the rebels many times before.
He is not in a good place and this is costing him a lot.
Also it is inevitable that he will lose assets.

His strategy is to take out the rebels and leave ISIS alone. After which the world is left with a binary choice, Assad or ISIS.

Putin is very cocky, deliberately sending combat aircraft into Turkish airspace, locking radars on Turkish military aircraft and intercepting USA drones. This is a very dangerous game and the potential for mistakes is high.

Cameron is very misguided blaming the migrant "swarm" on ISIS. The refugee problem was caused by Assad barrel bombs. Now Cameron wants to send our combat aircraft into Syria. He is stark raving mad. And he hasn't learned from the huge mess he made in Libya.

air pig

7th Oct 2015, 17:56

Lonewolf 50:

Does not what comes from politicians mouths make normal human beings scratch their heads 99% of the time.

Up to now people like Obama and Cameron have dealt with politicians they can at least come from the same political viewpoint, Putin is something totally different.

skydiver69

7th Oct 2015, 18:28

Is not Obama not working on his legacy and after the disaster in Benghazi is he willing to have his fingers burnt again.

Yet again I wonder what he won the Nobel Peace prize for.

Turbine D

7th Oct 2015, 18:50

Hmm,
Look at the map below:
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/CPlvKLhW8AEUg2m_zps62atpqom.jpeg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/CPlvKLhW8AEUg2m_zps62atpqom.jpeg.html)

IMHO, the Russians have put together a pretty good game plan to do what they came to Syria to do, return the country to Assad.

It begins with elimination of anti-Assad rebels from the areas in yellow closest to Assad controlled land. The Russians could care less who the good or bad rebels are, the goal is elimination. The Russians will, in the beginning, use Assad's troops on the ground to begin the removal process while at the same time determining what they may have to do in terms of "boots on the ground" and what logistics are required to make it totally happen. At this point in time, they are not interested in ISIS.

Next will come the elimination of pockets of ISIS from the areas east, south southwest and northwest of Palmyra. I would predict a mixture of Russian troops and others will take this on very soon.

Lastly, will come the major push to drive all of ISIS out of Syria, not many of which will make it out alive. This will involve many Russian, Iranian and other troops on the ground. And if you look at the map again, there will be only one place for ISIS (those that make it out) to go and that is Iraq. The Iraqis see this coming and are asking for Russian support starting now, because they don't see support coming from the US, UK, FR or Germany.

Give it some time, we will see.

Rosevidney1

7th Oct 2015, 19:45

I'm still trying to decide whether Putin is simply a genius or just a reckless gambler!

Lonewolf_50

7th Oct 2015, 20:22

I'm still trying to decide whether Putin is simply a genius or just a reckless gambler! Not reckless, I don't think.

@Eclectic:

The enabling of opposition to Assad has had the effect of lengthening a civil war that started in 2011. The key enablers were a few of the Gulf States, and a few Powers from the West. Had the attempt to unseat Assad been successful quickly, the length of this civil war would have been considerably less, and likewise the human cost. Granted, another civil war (in serial) may have erupted once Assad fell and the bickering for who is now in charge began. That would have been bloodier.

What are the Russians doing?

I think they are trying to end the civil war with one faction in charge: the government who was in power when it began. For better or worse, that may stabilize the situation if enough factions give up because they can no longer bear to fight The Man.

That in turn may hasten the beginning of a national healing process, and it may not. There are long memories in this part of the world, and bringing in foreigners to help you fight leaves bitter resentments.

Russia is not acting out of altruism. There are Russian interests at stake, to include something to do with how natural gas gets to market. They already have access to that Mediterranean port in Tartus. That old relationship that goes back some decades.

I think we are seeing a good example of realpolitik in action. While it may not get a lot better in Syria, I don't think it can get much worse than the four years of intramural bloodletting that has gone on so far. Last count I saw was over two and a half million have fled the country. This war has now lasted as long as our own Civil War (US), which was the most serious bloodletting we've been involved with, in terms of what percentage of the population were both slain and involved. There are still resentments simmering here over that one.

What Putin is doing strikes me as coldly calculated, not rash.

Think about this: what kind of deal did he make with Iran and Iraq about flying his cruise missiles over their territory to aid this effort? If he can make that kind of deal, what does that say about his success in opening doors to future relationships with both nations?

I think Putin is playing the long game.

air pig

7th Oct 2015, 21:21

LW 50:

I agree with you Putin is playing the long game. Apart from natural gas which is off Syria he also needs a warm water port in the eastern Mediterranean now Libya is untenable. The treaty that ensures Bospherous passage does not allow heavy naval units to transit to and from the Black Sea.

Many are writing Putin off as an unsophisticated thug, but I suspect he is a very clever and astute man, in fact, a survivor of the Cold War from his position as a Chekist in East Germany I believe in Dresden before the Wall fell. I do believe that he is indeed a student of Sun Tzu, of which unfortunately the western political class are either ignorant or disregarding the lessons.

if Turkey starts to request NATO forces to deploy in Turkey to maintain Turkish territorial integrity then we may end up in a shooting match more by accident than design. Putin has shown his determination by the use of cruise type missile, which will have cause serious consternation in the Turkish air defence control system when they were launched and not forgetting the call up of 150,000 conscripts.

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 21:44

I dunno about that. I'm in the camp that Vlad is very cautious but is moving forward as he senses a vacuum of power and a sees a general attitude of handwringing by the west. His calculas would rapidly change if the politicians didn't acquiesce to his actions. He's not foolish, he doesn't want an unwinnable war but he's emboldened by the lack of anything but rhetoric. I'm sure he's devastated his ambassador to Turkey was summoned to get an earful of diplomatic speak.

When he hears no and senses it really means no, I believe he'll back down.

air pig

7th Oct 2015, 21:56

West Coast:

This situation abhors a vacuum and Putin will step in and take advantage. His alliance with Syria and Iran also provides cover for his southern territories. Eliminate your problems far from home and if you can use proxy ground forces even better.

The west is conscious of the body bag factor and too many years of military action pursued by inept politicians and the present bunch give no hope for improvement. Putin like President Xi of China are running rings round the west and the coming together of Russia and China are going to produce big problems for the future.

Remember the Chinese control a very high percentage of the worlds natural resources in particular in Africa and they produce most of the worlds Lithium and own a lot of US debt. Russia controls gas supplies to Europe and winter is coming, just needs to turn the gas off as has happened to the Ukraine and Georgia in the past or demand cash up front.

TEEEJ

7th Oct 2015, 22:14

Cruise missiles flying over Northern Iraq

2b2Pzxbzvsk&feature=related

Cruise missile trails and targets hit in Syria.

5BsFrWTp5ZY&feature=related

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 22:32

AP

For the most part I agree with you. I don't believe China will be a memeber of some anti US cabal unless it suits its needs. I don't see that aiding thier quest. They need a strong, prosperous US, as evidenced by thier urging the Obama administration to get its fiscal act together.

I'm not quite gloom and doom as you.

air pig

7th Oct 2015, 22:52

Weat Coast:

China is making a lot of moves in the South China Sea in building bases on atolls around the Sprately And Paracel Islamds, where there are natural resources. An alliance with Putin would secure their 'back door' against any attack. Their development of a blue water navy and willingness to deploy it has been shown. They like the Russians are slowly professionalising their armed forces. North Korea is very much the bogey man I that area but at the moment China is supporting the regieme there.

I am not doom and gloom but a realist and America is getting to the point of not being able to simultaneously fight two major conventional conflicts at the same time.

West Coast

7th Oct 2015, 23:36

America is getting to the point of not being able to simultaneously fight two major conventional conflicts at the same time.

You're a little late to that party. The Obama administration made a decision back in 2012 to scrap plans of being able to fight two major regional conflicts at once. According to the Heritage foundation, that capability passed in early 2015 as a result of Obama's 2012 decision.

ORAC

8th Oct 2015, 07:59

Streetwise Professor: We Need to Choose Our Battles, and Syria Isn’t It (http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9631)

air pig

8th Oct 2015, 10:47

West Coast;

Apologies, don't keep my eye on American defence policy as i should, have enough trouble with the UK's. This from the head of NATO.

Nato chief says prepared to send troops to defend Turkey - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11918541/Russia-must-use-influence-to-protect-civilians-in-Syria-says-Fallon.html)

Just whose troops and how many from NATO states, maybe Frau Merkel and M. Hollande may want to send a couple or three divisions.

teeteringhead

8th Oct 2015, 11:05

The treaty that ensures Bospherous passage does not allow heavy naval units to transit to and from the Black Sea.

They've always wanted a "warm water port". The following was written in 1877 .......We've fought the Bear before,
And while we're Britons true
The Russians shall not have Constantinople!

air pig

8th Oct 2015, 11:22

Teeteringhead:

Until Libya fell, they had that port facility. Now they need a new one and Syria fits the bill even better being in the eastern Med.

Eclectic

8th Oct 2015, 11:47

One helicopter shot down. Rebels used TOW missile.
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/08/us-mideast-crisis-syria-helicopter-idUSKCN0S215F20151008
Not sure if Russian or Syrian.
But Syrians don't normally fly low and the Russians have been.
Also reports of a second one shot down.
And a third!

Sounds like the rebels changed tactics overnight.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 12:12

During the Russian occupation of Afghanistan they found that helicopters were a bit of an Achilles heel when facing terrorists armed with Stinger.

Now they are facing terrorists armed with Grail.

One wonders what level of losses they will regard as an acceptable operational risk. One also wonders what will happen to aircrew morale when the inevitable happens and one or more is taken by IS and subjected to their peculiar form of barbarity.

Lonewolf_50

8th Oct 2015, 12:41

Apologies, don't keep my eye on American defence policy as i should, have enough trouble with the UK's. This from the head of NATO.
Nato chief says prepared to send troops to defend Turkey - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11918541/Russia-must-use-influence-to-protect-civilians-in-Syria-says-Fallon.html)

Just whose troops and how many from NATO states, maybe Frau Merkel and M. Hollande may want to send a couple or three divisions.
From that link an interesting point made by a Turk:
"We can't accept the current situation. Russia's explanations on the air space violations are not convincing," the Turkish daily Sabah and others quoted Mr Erdogan as telling reporters as he flew to Japan for an official visit.
"We are Russia's number one natural gas consumer. Losing Turkey would be a serious loss for Russia. If necessary, Turkey can get its natural gas from many different places," he said. Message sent, eh?

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 12:48

Sounds like a measured and proportionate response to a very minor and quite harmless illegal incursion which was probably negligent and accidental rather than aggressive.

Hit Putin's friends in the pocket where it hurts.

Edited to add:
One wonders whether the Russians will be quite so sanguine next time Turkey sends aircraft into Syrian airspace to whack Kurdish terrorists.

teeteringhead

8th Oct 2015, 14:59

Until Libya fell, they had that port facility. Now they need a new one and Syria fits the bill even better being in the eastern Med. And they wouldn't have any language problems in Cyprus, judging from the last time I visited........

air pig

8th Oct 2015, 16:11

LW 50:

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan told Russia there were other places Turkey could get natural gas and other countries that could build its first nuclear plant in response to the incursions.

That is if the sympathizers with people like IS are prepared to sell also do they have enough facilities to off load the amount of LNG they will need and that does not even start with the problems of transport?

Cazalet33:

If the Russians are integrated within the Syrian air defence system and they have been invited into Syria by its 'President' They may have been legally empowered to resist the incursion with deadly force by the Turkish Air force via its Presidents authority. Putin it is reported to have called up 150,000 conscripts, would not take a minute to call up those who may not see the world the way he views it, and I suspect his friends know that.

Cazalet33

8th Oct 2015, 16:28

If the Russians are integrated within the Syrian air defence system and they have been invited into Syria by its 'President'

By all accounts, Syria's air defence ground environment isn't integrated at all.

Stuffy Dowding's UKADGE in 1938 was more integrated than Syria's ever was or ever will be.

Russia would have to set up an entirely parallel air defence system from scratch to defend Syria from NATO aggression. Simply can't be done, old boy.

air pig

8th Oct 2015, 16:44

Cazalet old chap:

Russia would have to set up an entirely parallel air defence system from scratch to defend Syria from NATO aggression. Simply can't be done, old boy.

Good enough to shoot down a Turkish F4 earlier this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

The Aviationist » Russian Su-30SM, Su-24 violate Turkish airspace. Flanker locks on TuAF F-16 for +5 minutes (http://theaviationist.com/2015/10/05/russian-su-30sm-su-24-violate-turkish-airspace-flanker-locks-on-tuaf-f-16-for-5-minutes/)

Looks like Syria have integrated the Russians quite successfully and we do not really know what equipment the Russians have with them, add in a couple of batteries of S400s to the Syrian S300s you have a pretty sophisticated system.

Pontius Navigator

8th Oct 2015, 17:16

Or of avoiding collisions.

I saw somewhere that the USA was complaining that Russian aircraft were flying too close to their drones.

So, who is responsible for missing whom?

Fixed wing drone like Predator, or a jet drone like a cruise missile?

So, does manned give way to unmanned (certainly a jet will give way to SAM :))?

If a slow drone and a cruise missile collide I can imagine the recriminations. You hit me. No, you were in my way.

air pig

8th Oct 2015, 17:20

PN:

Remember the advert 'where's there's blame there's a claim.' Is a drone in the same category as a hot air balloon in that neither are not really controllable in the true sense of the term.

More seriously is there any reports of A50 Mainstays been reported?

Cazalet33

9th Oct 2015, 00:38

add in a couple of batteries of S400s to the Syrian S300s you have a pretty sophisticated system.

Hardly a UKADGE lookalike, izzit?

When NATO ground attack aircraft incurse (is that the verb of incursion?), my money's on the NATO package winning the encounter.

ORAC

9th Oct 2015, 05:42

Intrude - as Flight of the Intruder.....

ORAC

9th Oct 2015, 06:29

50-50% choice, which do you believe......

Daily Beast: Obama Official Says Putin?s New War Is a Sign of American Success - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/07/obama-official-says-putin-s-new-war-is-a-sign-of-american-success.html)

The Russian airstrikes on Syria are a sign that U.S. policy is working, a senior State Department official told shocked Syrian-American advocates in a private meeting on Monday.

The “Russians wouldn’t have to help Assad if we didn’t weaken him,” U.S. special envoy for Syria Michael Ratney said, according to multiple participants in the meeting and contemporaneous notes. Russian intervention, he went on to say, is a sign of success for American policy on Syria..........

Washington Times: KEN ALLARD: Toward war in the Middle East - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/ken-allard-toward-war-in-the-middle-east/)

...........As a highly trained KGB apparatchik, Syria is not Mr. Putin’s first rodeo. While it has become obligatory in Washington policy salons to deplore Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Egypt’s recent history offers a better clue to Russia’s long-range goals.

Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.

Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region. Because it is a tough and unforgiving neighborhood, where would you place your bets if you lived there? Do you ally yourself with the rising regional power or the one seemingly intent only on defeat and retreat? As a friend points out, “Obama only attacks oilmen, Wall Street, the police, pro-lifers, the NRA, Christians, conservative Republicans, and traditional U.S. allies. Remember when they were the good guys?”

In this confusing world, it is important to remember that things can get worse, particularly given the fog of war with lots of heavily armed aircraft moving at high speeds over surprisingly small operating areas. War is justly famed for confounding the best intentions, for proving that the only assumption which holds true is the one you were certain could never happen.

beardy

9th Oct 2015, 09:05

I would like to commend an interesting perspective written by an experienced analyst:

A World Without Islam | Graham E. Fuller (http://grahamefuller.com/world-without-islam/)

The north Eastern corner of the Mediterranean has been a cultural crossroad and flashpoint for millenia, not just East/West but also North/South. Islam is just another factor that adds salt to the suppurating sore.

The author was a senior CIA analyst, that does not mean his views represent policy.

air pig

9th Oct 2015, 10:00

Cazalet:

NATO are not going to attack Syria in any significant way without a resolution from the UNSC and that ain't going to happen in Putin's lifetime as he has a veto on any action.

As to Syrian air defence, it may not be UKADGE plus integration with NATO CAOCs but you would not want to be flying against systems like S3/400 missiles.

Pontius Navigator

9th Oct 2015, 10:57

The problem is one of the principles of war. The first British principle is:

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim

A single, unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations. Selection and maintenance of the aim is regarded as the master principle of war.

In the USA the first objective is:

Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.

In Britain, is the aim defeat of ISIL or the overthrow of Assad?

In the USA case their objective appears to have defined the enemy as Assad.

Russia, OTOH, is supporting Assad and thus opposed to the USA. This leaves the UK in a quandary. Do we support Obama and attack Assad or do we support Russia and support Assad?

air pig

9th Oct 2015, 15:40

PN:

If this is true, yet another ball in play. Only from one source

China Send Fighter Jets To Syria, Joining Forces With Russia | Your News Wire (http://yournewswire.com/china-send-fighter-jets-to-syria-joining-forces-with-russia/)

This is just getting dangerous. Is it part of the accommodation between Russia and China who have their own islamic problem.

TEEEJ

9th Oct 2015, 16:21

Air pig,

That story has been doing the rounds since it appeared in the well known conspiracy website Debka. There were claiming that the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning was off Syria on 26th September. The J-15 is the carrier capable multi-role Chinese Flanker variant.

It looks like certain media and journalists are still spinning the fabricated story.

The Israeli military and intelligence news website DEBKAfile has now claimed that the Chinese are preparing to join Russia. The Jerusalem-based news website noted that the "J-15 warplanes will take off from the Chinese Liaoning-CV-16 aircraft carrier, which reached Syrian shores on 26 September."

Russia in Syria: Chinese J-15 fighter jets to join Russian air campaign against Isis? (http://www.ibtimes.co.in/russia-syria-chinese-j-15-fighter-jets-join-russian-air-campaign-against-isis-649207)

air pig

9th Oct 2015, 16:23

TEEJ:

Interesting scenario though and they would not need an aircraft carrier to get there either.

Eclectic

9th Oct 2015, 17:07

Saudi are not happy.
Word is that they delivered 500 TOW missiles to the FSA this week.
Certainly the FSA have been using lots of them. Including against low helicopters.

A_Van

9th Oct 2015, 18:24

Will be quite surprised if the Chinese get in and make even a couple of shots.

It does not look like they forgot Sun Tzu who said: “If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.”

Thus, just wait and see. Who will be floating - the Russians, Americans, ISIS, any of them would be for the benefit of Tianxia (country "under heaven")

air pig

9th Oct 2015, 18:35

A Van:

The western countries either have forgotten or never read the words of the philosopher general. A wise man.

Heathrow Harry

10th Oct 2015, 08:56

The Russians are also using Syria to test their systems and kit following the changes after the Georgian fiasco

Ukraine & Crimea were a useful first step but against very weak opposition - Syria is a step up

plus they have always backed Assad so they are unlikely to drop him now

Our big problem is that no-one has any idea of what we want at the end - other than peace & goodwill to all men :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pontius Navigator

10th Oct 2015, 09:44

what we want in the end

And therein lies the rub.

We might want happy smiling faces in a prosperous secular democracy, neutral but friendly to the West.

What do the people want?

What do the people need?

For a start they probably need a strong man capable of bashing a few heads together so that peace and harmony is a more comfortable option.

What do they want? Each religious faction has its own agenda. The young single men probably want the buzz from firing their Kalashnikovs at human targets. The villages probably want nothing except to be left alone. The townsfolk probably want peace and trade.

Is the West's ideal of democracy relevant? It the Russian idea of an imposed dictatorship better? Certainly in Russia many, especially in Putin's home town, think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread (since bread is now available).

brakedwell

10th Oct 2015, 10:14

The source may be unreliable, but it might be true!

Russian 'jet SHOT DOWN by Turkish forces after it flew into their airspace' | World | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/611157/Russia-Turkey-jet-plane-shot-down-airspace-Syria-ISIS-Islamic-State)

downsizer

10th Oct 2015, 12:35

Russians haven't got any -29s in theatre. If it was a -29 it was Syrian.

avoka

10th Oct 2015, 14:08

It's very very interesting to read about my native country on the aviaton thread,but guys,vast majority of information looks like bull****. Does Anybody have some reliable info?
90%info here from point "a little bird told",and people try to interpret it in different ways like chatterboxes.
Light surfing on the net( official sources) can give Your pretty reliable info:
News : Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation (http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country.htm)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/middle_east.html
and so on.
My country really faced with terrorists some times ago(North Coucasia),and so many people were killed there (men,women,children).Even now Police catchs bearded hoodlums in mountainous area,who try to build "arabic halifat" killing people. It's really problem,when anybody trys to judge somebody in according to "Sharian laws"-cutting throats and heads,and burning live people (go to Yotube to find examples). Therefore,I think, it's good position to deal with terrorists killing them before moment,when they try to build such bedlam like in Syria,Libya,Afganistan,Iraq in my country or anywhere in Europe,Asia or Australia.
Bstrgds
Safe flights

ORAC

10th Oct 2015, 14:29

In some respects he's right.....

Streetwise Professor: Why Don’t Journalists Scrutinize the Oracle of Syria? (http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9636)

Eclectic

10th Oct 2015, 14:58

avoka,

You don't seriously believe that anyone who is educated believes anything that Russia says. They have been serial liars about Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, MK-17, Georgia, Chechnya and all their other adventures.
Their propaganda might be believed in Russia but in the West only the hard of thinking give it any credence.

Here are some of the Russian lies about Syria totally exposed:
https://bellingcat.checkdesk.org/en/story/736

A_Van

10th Oct 2015, 18:02

Eclectic:
It is not a politically-oriented thread of the forum, and I would not like to elaborate on such discussions, but all the propaganda loves to lie.
Nothing personal, just "returning the ball": here is a well-known lie about Iraq (weapons of mass destruction that later were never found there) that led to the invasion and total destruction of the country:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6WuTSTyS8
Obviously, Hussein, Gaddafi and may others were "must-die" monsters, but they maintained secular regimes and their brutal removal generated a much higher level of monstrosity in the region including creation of ISIS and other groups of armed thugs.

Reading and listening to what western media is now often saying/publishing about my country I lost a large portion of respect to CNN, BBC, NYT and likes. Especially when they tell "stories" about the venues that we live in.
Converting lies into rumors and then rumors into "facts"....Just see a URL two posts above about the guy who is hiding himself in your home town in UK and call himself alone smth like "Syrian observatory for human rights" speading lies about what's happening in Syria.
Having heard tons of lies about their own country, most of the Russians do not believe anything that US and UK media now say about Syria.
Giving up now with the politics and suggest to come back to military hardware. Would not mind if the moderator deletes the posts not related to the main topic.

Pontius Navigator

10th Oct 2015, 18:26

A Van

reading and listening to what western media is now often saying/publishing about my country I lost a large portion of respect to CNN, BBC, NYT and likes. Especially when they tell "stories" about the venues that we live in.

Don't confuse what we appear to say about your media with belief in the veracity of our own media. You only have to read a few threads here to see how we believe in the creditability of the Daily Fail or the impartiality of the Garudian or Torygraph and earlier on bulletins from Truth Central (AKA Main Building or MoD)

Yours sceptically,

smujsmith

10th Oct 2015, 18:52

PN,

I think I know what you mean. I've been seeing reports of a Mig 29 shoot down by Turkish F16s all day today in both the dailies fail and excess. Both quote "reports" of this shoot down, but fail to report the source, so have no substantial foundation for their assertions. Meanwhile, no reported "NATO Outrage at Russian aggression" reported anywhere. I think I'm heading towards the camp of the "cynical old bloke" who can't see the difference between Russian or NATO bull****. Back to reality ? I wish.

Smudge

barnstormer1968

10th Oct 2015, 19:26

Smuj
The level of accuracy of the stories you quote were summed up for me with two 'facts' the stories contained.
A. The jets hovered above the city
B. Planes did things mysteriously.

I'd like to think that no one with knowledge of aircraft would say hover unless talking about a balloon in still air, a helicopter or a VTOL aircraft.
As for 'mysterious' I wonder if the aircraft were wearing cloaks like Zorro or a magician.

Eclectic

12th Oct 2015, 15:39

Russia are certainly trying out all their toys in Syria.
Reported deployment of Kamov Ka-50 Black Shark and Mil Mi-28 Havoc attack helicopters.

Also the "good" rebels have all united, and are now "Syrian Democratic Forces". USA airdropped 50 tons of weapons to them last night. U.S. gives 50 tons of ammunition to Syria rebel groups - CNNPolitics.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/syria-rebel-groups-ammunition-50-tons/)
And New Rebel Coalition Forms In Syria; Insurgents Lost Ground Over Weekend : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/12/447969603/new-rebel-coalition-forms-in-syria-insurgents-lost-ground-over-weekend)

This begs several questions.
Did the shipment include MANPADs?
Will Russia try to intercept future USA airdrops? After all these weapons will be used against them. If they do what will USA do? Presumably they are running F-22 escorts.

KenV

12th Oct 2015, 19:15

Also the "good" rebels have all united, and are now "Syrian Democratic Forces". USA airdropped 50 tons of weapons to them last night. U.S. gives 50 tons of ammunition to Syria rebel groups - CNNPolitics.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/syria-rebel-groups-ammunition-50-tons/)
And New Rebel Coalition Forms In Syria; Insurgents Lost Ground Over Weekend : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/12/447969603/new-rebel-coalition-forms-in-syria-insurgents-lost-ground-over-weekend)

This begs several questions.
Did the shipment include MANPADs?

Is it just me, or is there pretty big difference between "50 tons of weapons" and "50 tons of ammunition"?

Eclectic

12th Oct 2015, 21:03

Is a MANPAD or an ATGM a weapon or ammunition?

A_Van

13th Oct 2015, 07:40

Let's now see whether the receivers of this "50 tonn gift" positively answer to the Al-Qaeda "daughter company" invitation :

Syria's Nusra Front leader urges wider attacks on Assad's Alawite areas to avenge Russian bombing - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11927760/Syrias-Nusra-Front-leader-urges-wider-attacks-on-Assads-Alawite-areas-to-avenge-Russian-bombing.html)

Skeleton

13th Oct 2015, 09:55

I am still trying to get my head round the "Your bombing the wrong terrorists," policy and supplying the "wronged" with weapons. The West has screwed up royally in Syria so far and seems to be determined to carry that forward. This may not be Obama's Vietnam, it may well though, be his Waterloo. The Russians are not playing games or "testing" kit.

Supplying people with armament that you have no control over, other than where you think, and hope it may be used is plain madness especially given you are dealing with Russia.

This is already ugly and appears to be getting dangerous.

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2015, 10:02

According to the Torygraph, the Americans are supplying to the good rebels that Russia is attacking. Now in Vietnam the Americans were supporting the good guys (sic) and the Russians supporting the baddies (sic).

The Americans however were careful to try and avoid actually shooting at Russians. Now, with Russians in the front line and . . .

Oh s**!

melmothtw

13th Oct 2015, 10:10

In some respects he's right.....

Streetwise Professor: Why Don’t Journalists Scrutinize the Oracle of Syria?

Agree to a point Orac, but the comment below the story that "Modern journalists don’t like to do the foot-trudging required to find out stuff for themselves any more" fails to take into account the reality of being an independent (unembedded) journalist in today's conflict zones, where all sides see you as a tool of the enemy (either by accident or by design) and treat you accordingly.

Of course, this hasn't been helped by the rise over recent years of pseudo-journalists from RT and elsewhere who really are instruments of their state, and who tar the rest with the same brush.

Skeleton

13th Oct 2015, 10:13

Pontius,

The Americans however were careful to try and avoid actually shooting at Russians. Now, with Russians in the front line and . . .

Oh s**!

As ever bang on the money, well said.

A_Van

13th Oct 2015, 10:33

I think (well, believe) that it is not that bad as it was in Vietnam. It was said several times here, in Russia, that US and Russian military established a communication link to prevent accidents in the airspace. Hope it will work.
The fact that US and Russia support different groups of "bad guys" is sad, but actually nothing new, and serious people do not take it as a considerable escalation. Just a couple of extra sorties to destroy these newly supplied weapons if they are used not against ISIS, Nusra front and likes.
I still wonder why not to jointly (i.e. US and "their" rebels on one side and Russia + Syrian governmental forces on the other side) vaporize all those totally mad bloody ISIS & Co. maniacs and then jointly decide how to establish an acceptable secular regime in Damascus. As far as I heard, "baby Assad" was ready to study a compromise that would allow his head remain on its place while giving most of the power to a sort of a yet-to-be-defined "democratic" regime (whatever it may mean in that campus). IMHO, personal ambitions on all sides prevent coordinated "taking arms against the sea of troubles".

Skeleton

13th Oct 2015, 10:43

A Van I doubt very much that either side are telling each other what they are "really" up to, and given the number of reported close encounters that appears to be true. An hours notice (if true) of Russia's first air strikes is not a lot of notice for anyone to de-conflict is but one example.

As you say why not team up and wipe out ISIS, we can sort out if Assad stays after.

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2015, 11:05

A Van, the Americans were a little irritated that Russian missiles were fired at them by Vietnamese.

I hope the Russians will be similarly only slightly irritated if American missiles were fired at them by . . .

A_Van

13th Oct 2015, 11:20

PN:
You wrote: "I hope the Russians will be similarly only slightly irritated if American missiles were fired at them by . . ."

I hope so. It actually already happened in Afganistan in 80's when first Stingers arrived to those who are now Taliban. And though many helicopters were shot down, it was not a "casus belli".

"A la guerre comme a la guerre" as our French friends say...

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2015, 11:30

Almost as an aside, someone wrote a letter yesterday that civil flights were at hazard from Russian cruise missiles flying over Iran.

Today the EU has issued an advisory.

BA has made no change to its routing over Iran.

Someone knows little about cruise missiles.

Lonewolf_50

13th Oct 2015, 15:18

A Van:

The western countries either have forgotten or never read the words of the philosopher general. A wise man. Not sure who doesn't read Sun Tzu, he's required reading at the staff college I attended, run by the US Army.
Maybe our pols ignore him.

@ Pontius Navigator: Very well played on The Aim and the cross purposes at which the US and Russian are working in Syria. Obama went on record as deciding that Assad had to go in 2011. How remains in the "we'll know it when we see it" category, but at least his Aim's been consistent. Putin backed Assad then, and is backing him more now. Putin's Aim has been consistent, and he's decided to pursue it through to success.

The UK: is there an Aim necessary in the person of Assad for the UK's national interest? Does it really matter if he's in power or not? I can't speak to UK geostrategy.

Aside: I think BA has it sorted, the EU not so much.

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2015, 15:30

The UK: is there an Aim necessary in the person of Assad for the UK's national interest? Does it really matter if he's in power or not? I can't speak to UK geostrategy.

When you find out, let us know.

Lonewolf_50

13th Oct 2015, 15:33

When you find out, let us know. Heh, I wish I could look somewhere other than up my own rear channel, from which region is the only place I could pull such an answer. :(

Eclectic

14th Oct 2015, 12:49

Lonewolf_50

14th Oct 2015, 14:40

Putin says he can't bomb ISIS because USA won't give him the co-ordinates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/world/europe/putin-complains-about-us-cooperation-on-syria.html?_r=0

Presumably this is for the hard of thinking who believe his propaganda lies.

But what is the real reason?Actually, since a coalition C2/C3I architecture is not in place that folds in all players, there is probably at least a small element of truth to the "not very coordinated" manner of cooperation between parties with varying aims.

One of the problems of hitting ISIS is good target data that isn't also going to result in unwanted carnage and bad PR were a bomb to hit next to ... say ... a kindergarden. Any such targeting data would be vetted before passing it to someone with looser RoE than us.

Picture this scenario: a US fellow finds some ISIS pogues and none of the aircraft he can work with are in the air. He passes it to HQ who pass it to the Russians. They come in and whack the target, but also take out the first aid center and old folks home next door. The Russians can say "but the US passed us that target, so we hit it."

This is a very real potential mess up since our C2 and coalition coordination isn't up to par with the Russians. A pity, but given the hay made with strikes that do what you didn't want them to, it isn't worth the risk. ISIS will be there tomorrow, just have to find them again.

The other problem is that targeting data on things like "ISIS" and its people is perishable information. We used to have a term called "actionable intelligence" when I was dealing in strikes against some of the Al Q and other sorts in Iraq. When some of them had been found, there was a time limit for how long that information was good for. After a while, it was no longer good targeting data and we would be back to "weapons tight" until better, non perished information was available, or not.

A_Van

14th Oct 2015, 15:09

Some misinterpretation from Eclectic. You probably do not speak Russian (apologies if you do), NYT correspondent maybe speaks but not good enough, plus people usually hear what they'd like to hear...

I do speak Russian and I heard was Putin was saying as it was on TV (though I do not advocate him in general at all).

It was said that:

1. When Russia was accused for bombing "not the right groups" of armed people in Syria, they (the Russians) asked US: "Give us the coordinates of the "right ones" and we will attack them". The answer was "No". I personally see no trouble in getting such a negative answer. Lonewolf excellently explained the problems of sharing such data. Indeed, it was showed on TV that some military vehicles were moving in a city through living quarters and finally parked next to the wall of a mosque. One can imagine what a cry would take place all over the muslin world even if a handful of shrapnel hit this wall.

It was reported here (in Russia) that US also added that negative reply was linked to the condition "until you support Assad", but maybe politicians added it or it was misinterpreted, in turn, by the Russian media.

2. Then the Russian question was re-formulated: "If you do not provide the target coordinates, please tell us who should NOT be bombed". Once again, negative reply.

In this case the main source of ground-based intelligence for the Russian forces is the Syrian governmental forces. Obviously, they will point towards all the rebels.

All this does not mean that the Russian AF cannot bomb ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Nura front, etc. They can and they do bomb them. I assume (and am pretty sure) that in addition they bomb anti-Assad rebels as well. But if the latter oppose to the Russian forces and prevent the Syrian governmental troops to attack ISIS (standing in between them), it is logical. War is war.

Lonewolf_50

14th Oct 2015, 16:07

Nice post, A_Van, thanks for the view from your neck of the woods. ... it is logical. War is war. And in this particular case, a bloody mess at all levels. (One can use "bloody" in about three different senses of that word :( and it fits the situation to a "T" in each case).

flydive1

14th Oct 2015, 17:44

"but the US passed us that target, so we hit it."

Where did I hear something similar recently?;)

Afghanistan, maybe?

Lonewolf_50

14th Oct 2015, 20:12

Where did I hear something similar recently?;)

Afghanistan, maybe? Actually, that was US-US, not cross national ... a different problem, but a problem well covered in that other thread.

flydive1

14th Oct 2015, 20:19

Actually, I thought it was Afghani-US...but, well, they changed version so many times that is quite hard to keep up.

Eclectic

15th Oct 2015, 09:42

Rebels fire Scud missile at Russian airbase?
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/566059-mystery-blast-rocks-syria-coastal-region
And
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3ou4g1/multiple_reports_that_jaish_alislam_attempted_to/

Maybe we will see some aircraft dispersion now.

A_Van

15th Oct 2015, 11:37

Or just put C-300 air defense system on every airbase used by the Russian AF. Scud is an easy "test and training" target for C-300.
And not give them (C-300s) to the Assad forces that will sooner or later either get them broken or taken by jihaddists.

Pontius Navigator

15th Oct 2015, 11:52

A Van, a lesson the cousins continually fail to grasp.

Lonewolf_50

15th Oct 2015, 17:48

There are other Surface to Surface missiles than Scuds. Just because a missile was fired doesn't mean it was a scud. There are a host of shorter range missiles once in the Syrian inventory. A few that might have fallen into opposition hands include ...

FROG-7, Scud-B OTR-21, Tochka 9K720, Iskander, Hwasong-6(Scud C), Hwasong-7(Scud D), Fateh-110, Zelzal-2, Zelzal-3 Tactical Shahab-2

These are of various sizes and ranges, and are made in Russia, North Korea, or Iran.

The reason I don't think it was a Scud is because NATO and/or the US could confirm if a Scud launched, providing it is keeping the area under surveillance. That capability has been around for a few decades.

Give it a day or two and see if the US confirms that a TBM was launched. If they don't, then it was probably something other than a Scud.

Eclectic

15th Oct 2015, 18:01

Here it is just before launch:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN0rYFpWIAI6zQt.jpg

Social media think it is a Zelzal

Robert Cooper

16th Oct 2015, 02:37

According to Reuters and Fox the Cubans are now putting ground troops in there. Maybe this Russian coalition can do a better job than we have?

Bob C

A_Van

16th Oct 2015, 08:14

These sources mention that the Cuban "contingent" is rather small, a few tens of people. OK, maybe a few hundreds; more would simply not fit transport aircraft. That is definitely not enough to be a game-changer alone.

If the chinese could send a "small group", amounted to 1-2 Mln... :-)

beardy

16th Oct 2015, 08:54

Are the Cubans joining the Chinese on their carrier, or will that be a role for the North Koreans?

Well it is Fox News.

Ddraig Goch

16th Oct 2015, 10:43

Unconfirmed reports - unidentified aircraft shot down by Turkish jets, after ignoring 3 warnings, over Turkish airspace.

barnstormer1968

16th Oct 2015, 10:45

Just also heard the above story on Radio five, but no further details.

TEEEJ

16th Oct 2015, 10:57

Turkish military now saying that their fighters shot down a UAV in their airspace.

Eclectic

16th Oct 2015, 11:10

http://img-cdn.ntv.com.tr/gorsel/turkiye/genelkurmay-turk-hava-sahasina-giren-bir-hava-araci-dusuruldu,gwnf4Y1kH0KFSilQ9xFHTQ.jpg

Source:
Genelkurmay: Türk hava sahas?na giren bir hava arac? dü?ürüldü | NTV (http://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/genelkurmay-turk-hava-sahasina-giren-bir-hava-araci-dusuruldu,87i6oBE80kWoujkWraYX3Q)

Social media reckon it is the Iranian copy of the Scan Eagle:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRb1IpmWoAAgCrL.jpg

And now they are speculating that it is a Russian Orlan:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRb39XDWEAAMesx.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRb39UgW0AA3DWn.jpg

Lonewolf_50

16th Oct 2015, 13:21

Hooray for our Turkish friends. :ok:
This gets more interesting by the day.
Did the Cubans bring enough cigars with them? That's the first question.

A_Van

16th Oct 2015, 13:59

IMHO, "much ado about nothing" as far as shooting down this primitive UAV is concerned (no matter who owned it). A negligible episode of a war - nobody killed, nothing destroyed on the ground, etc.
Politician maybe will throw a couple of notes to each other but this is what they are working for.

Still no confirmation in the Russian media about the cubanos. One more fantasy from Fox, or they are just hiding smoking cigars?

TEEEJ

16th Oct 2015, 14:42

Russian Orlan or Orlan variant. The square wing tips suggest an Orlan variant.

The Ukrainians recovered a few from their territory. Either malfunctioned or shot down.

Orlan recovered in Ukraine.

http://weaponscollection.com/uploads/posts/2015-08/1440665591_11.jpg

The type has been seen before in Syria and have crashed in rebel held territory during July 2015. Could well be the Syrians operating this Russian UAV and hence the claim from the Russians of no UAVs lost?

http://cs629313.vk.me/v629313517/9b24/W7058QSc6kE.jpg

A_Van

16th Oct 2015, 17:31

Orlan-10 is shown in the 4th picture in the Eclectic's post (a guy in a camuflage uniform stands near with a hand-held radio).

The rest of the pictures show different UAVs, they obviously do not match Orlan-10.

Again, can't understand what's the buzz about a 30-pound UAV. There are hundreds of them in the Syrian air, from all sides involved or just watching.

Eclectic

16th Oct 2015, 18:58

Another picture:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRb5AKTWoAAI9fo.png

Video: First images of drone shot down by Turkey near Syria | Reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/10/16/first-images-of-drone-shot-down-by-turke?videoId=365969514&videoChannel=1)

ORAC

20th Oct 2015, 15:19

USMC centric bl*g. Replace * to view.....

http://snafu-solomon.bl*gsp*t.co.uk
Russian Helicopter Close Air Support in Syria...

A few things.

I talk **** about the wing but damn it, those Russians are flying close air just like Marine Corps Cobra pilots. They aren't scared to get in the **** and neither are those Russians. Interesting. I hope our guys are practicing helicopter vs helicopter tactics. That should be one helluva fight (hopefully it doesn't happen...but if it does...).

Next.

Did you catch glimpses of the Syrian Army? Those guys are sporting brand new gear. Not one spot of dust on it. It looks like it was issued just before they went into combat....not even training scuffs on it. The infusion of aid to the Syrian Army by the Russians must be MUCH MORE robust than we're being led to believe.

Last.

Did you notice the Syrian tanks bounding to contact? They're using much better tactics from just a few frames of video than I saw earlier in the war. Danger focuses the mind and these guys are motivated.

UUZsqjEi6s8

ORAC

20th Oct 2015, 15:38

Putin's Foreign Legion (http://www.politico.eu/article/putins-foreign-legion/)

A_Van

20th Oct 2015, 16:23

ORAC,
Regarding the URLs you mentioned: shallow propaganda and demonization of Russia. Nothing new. Why not address more positive things, e.g. that US and Russia are close to agreement on flights over Syria (to avoid conflicts)?
Why many think that the only purpose of these op's in Syria is to challenge US? Russia has more solid reasons. The main one is that there are 5-7 thousand of armed thugs in various Syrian terrorist groups that came from Russia (its muslim regions) and neighboring countries (former USSR republics) with transparent borders with Russia.
It is obviously pragmatic (maybe even cynic, but we are talking military stuff here...) to dig them there, in the sand of the Syrian desert, along with their names, than to have them back here blowing up our cities, planes, trains, etc.